Case Header

Maricopa County Superior Court Case CV2016-050453: public docket details, parties, minute entries, documents, and official source links for Village At Grayhawk Owners Association.

Case Number

CV2016-050453

County

Maricopa

Caption

Not captured

Filed

2/25/2016

Case Type

Civil

Judge

Martin, Daniel

Location

Northeast

Official Court Record

Official Court Record

Parties

Minute Entries

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

01/20/2022 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

01/19/2022

Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ALISON BACHUS
C. Lett

Deputy

VILLAGE AT GRAYHAWK OWNERS
ASSOCIATION
JOSHUA M BOLEN

v.

ALAN JONES, et al.

KATHRYN MARIE JONES
1610 W ALOE VERA DR
PHOENIX AZ 85085
JUDGE BACHUS

MINUTE ENTRY

Courtroom 111 - NER

10:02 a.m. This is the time set for an Oral Argument regarding
Plaintiff/Counterdefendant Village at Grayhawk Owners Association’s Motion to
Preclude Expert Testimony of Alan Jones filed September 14, 2021 via Court
Connect. Plaintiff/Counter Defendant Village at Grayhawk Owners Association is
represented by counsel Timothy Butterfield and Scott Humble.
Defendant/Counterclaimant Kathryn Marie Jones is present on her own behalf. All
participants appear virtually via the Court Connect platform.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

01/19/2022

Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 2

A record of the proceedings is made digitally in lieu of a court reporter.

Discussion is held regarding today’s oral argument and the motions to be
argued today. Notice being given on only one motion for today’s hearing, the
Court will set an additional oral argument on the Motion for Summary Judgment.

IT IS ORDERED setting Oral Argument regarding Plaintiff’s September
14, 2021 Motion for Summary Judgment for January 28, 2022 at 8:30 a.m. (time
allotted: 1 hour) in this Division. Oral argument shall be limited to one (1) hour
with the time divided equally between the sides.

Counsel and any unrepresented parties shall appear by videoconference
through Court Connect for this conference.

Please join the hearing from your computer, tablet, or smartphone:

https://tinyurl.com/jbazmc-cvj16

You can also dial in using your phone.
United States: +1 (917) 781-4590

Courtroom Conference ID: 826 490 596#

Use of the above link can be made easier by downloading the Microsoft Teams
application first; for more on the new platform, including an introduction video and
participant guide, please visit: https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/court-connect

NOTE: All Court proceedings are recorded digitally and not by a court
reporter. Pursuant to Local Rule 2.22, if a party desires a court reporter for any
proceeding in which a court reporter is not mandated by Arizona Supreme Court
Rule 30, the party must submit a written request to the assigned judicial officer at
least ten (10) judicial days in advance of the hearing, and must pay the authorized

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

01/19/2022

Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 3

fee to the Clerk of the Court at least two (2) judicial days before the proceeding.
The fee is $140 for a half-day and $280 for a full day.

Arguments are presented.

IT IS ORDERED taking the Motion to Preclude Expert Testimony of Alan
Jones filed September 14, 2021 under advisement.

10:36 a.m. Matter concludes.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

02/02/2022 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

01/28/2022

Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ALISON BACHUS
C. Lett

Deputy

VILLAGE AT GRAYHAWK OWNERS
ASSOCIATION
JOSHUA M BOLEN

v.

ALAN JONES, et al.

KATHRYN MARIE JONES
1610 W ALOE VERA DR
PHOENIX AZ 85085
JUDGE BACHUS

MINUTE ENTRY

Courtroom 111 - NER

8:40 a.m. This is the time set for an Oral Argument regarding Plaintiff’s
September 14, 2021 Motion for Summary Judgment via Court Connect. Plaintiff
Village at Grayhawk Owners Association is represented by counsel Timothy D.
Butterfield and Scott Humble. Defendant Kathryn Marie Jones is present on her
own behalf. All participants appear virtually via the Court Connect platform.

A record of the proceedings is made digitally in lieu of a court reporter.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

01/28/2022

Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 2

Arguments are presented.

Defendant makes an oral Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of
Motion for Summary Judgment filed on December 17, 2021.

Based on matters presented to the Court, and for reasons stated on the
record,

IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant’s oral Motion to Strike.

Arguments continue.

Discussion continues regarding Defendant’s request for leave to file a
Motion to Strike.

Over the objection of Plaintiff, the Court will permit Defendant to File a
Motion to Strike. The Court will not consider this Motion for Summary Judgment
until the Motion to Strike is fully briefed. The Court will preserve the arguments
that have been made today.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant may file a Motion to Strike no later than
February 4, 2022. The Response and Reply times shall be governed by the Rules.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED upon the filing of the Reply to the Motion to
Strike, Plaintiff’s September 14, 2021 Motion for Summary Judgment shall be
taken under advisement.

If no Motion to Strike is filed on or before February 4, 2022, then the
Motion for Summary Judgment would be ripe for disposition and under
advisement as of February 4, 2022.

9:50 a.m. Matter concludes.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

01/31/2019 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

01/30/2019

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE STEVEN K. HOLDING
V. Burton

Deputy

VILLAGE AT GRAYHAWK OWNERS
ASSOCIATION
STEWART FOSTER SALWIN

v.

ALAN JONES, et al.

DAVID L ABNEY
COMM. HOLDING
DOCKET-CIVIL-CCC
JUDGE BAILEY

MINUTE ENTRY

Pursuant to the Court of Appeals Memorandum Decision dated December 20, 2018,

IT IS ORDERED vacating the Default Judgment and Injunction Order signed by this
Court on December 5, 2017.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED referring this matter to the Honorable Cynthia Bailey for
further resolution.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

02/05/2019 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

02/04/2019

Docket Code 066
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. PAMELA GATES
K. Ballard

Deputy

VILLAGE AT GRAYHAWK OWNERS
ASSOCIATION
STEWART FOSTER SALWIN

v.

ALAN JONES, et al.

DAVID L ABNEY
JUDGE BAILEY
JUDGE CAMPAGNOLO

CASE REASSIGNMENT - CIVIL PRESIDING JUDGE

This case was previously assigned to the Honorable Cynthia Bailey, who has disqualified
herself. The case was transferred to the Presiding Civil Judge for reassignment.

IT IS ORDERED reassigning this case to Civil Calendar CVJ-16, the Honorable Theodore
Campagnolo, for all further proceedings.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any and all hearings set by the disqualified judge are
vacated, to be reset by the new division.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall jointly file within 10 days of the date
of this minute entry, a notice with the new division listing any outstanding motions (including the
file dates), whether they are ripe for resolution, and any hearings that need to be reset.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

02/13/2019 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

02/11/2019

Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO
K. Hartley

Deputy

VILLAGE AT GRAYHAWK OWNERS
ASSOCIATION
JOSHUA M BOLEN

v.

ALAN JONES, et al.

DAVID L ABNEY
JUDGE CAMPAGNOLO

TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE SET

The Court is in receipt of a Mandate from the Court of Appeals dated January 25, 2019.
Accordingly,

On the Court’s own motion,

IT IS ORDERED setting a telephonic Pretrial Status Conference on February 21, 2019
at 8:30 a.m. (15 minutes allotted) for the purpose of discussing the status of the case. Counsel
for Plaintiff shall initiate the telephonic conference by first arranging the presence of all other
counsel on the conference call and by calling this division at: (602) 372-0537 (602) 372-0537 no
later than 5 minutes before the scheduled time. The parties and counsel shall not be permitted
to participate in conferences via cell phones or speakerphone.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

02/11/2019

Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 2

**Counsel please review the information below**

Becoming familiar with the Court’s requirements is crucial, failure to comply with any of
the requirements can and will delay the resolution.

The parties are encouraged to view Judge Campagnolo’s online profile for additional
information on the Court’s expectations regarding motion practices and requirements, discovery
disputes, and hearing/trial procedures at the following website:
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/JudicialBiographies/judges/profile.asp?jdgID=327&jdg
USID=12118

Pay particular attention to the following:

 The Court will reject any motion that is not accompanied by a proposed form or
order in word format.

 All motions, including, but not limited to, summary judgment motions, responses
and replies, that contain 5 or more exhibits shall require the filing party to do the
following:

 Within 24 hours of filing a motion/response/reply that contains 5 or more
exhibits, the filing party is required to provide to the Court a copy of the
respective motion, response or reply along with all exhibits on a CD.
 Each pleading on the CD shall contain hyperlinks to all exhibits attached to
your pleading and to all substantive appellate cases cited therein (you do
not need to provide hyperlinks to boilerplate case law, unless it is an unusual
or obscure citation). The hyperlink to exhibits is crucial, so that the Court
can readily locate an exhibit without undue delay.

 This division requires that all motions, responses, replies and other pleadings in this
case must be submitted individually. The parties shall not combine any motion with
a responsive pleading. All motions are to be filed separately and designated as such.
No pleadings will be accepted if filed in combination with another.

 Any motion that requires a Rule 7.1(h) Certificate of Good Faith Consultation,
which does not include such Certificate, will be held until compliance is met.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

02/11/2019

Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 3

 The Court will reject any request to place or continue a matter on the inactive
calendar. As of April 15, 2014 the civil court’s “inactive” calendar was replaced
with a “dismissal” calendar. Any request must refer to the Dismissal Calendar,
as the inactive calendar no longer exist in civil cases.

Rule 7.1(h) Certificate of Good Faith Consultation:

Any motion that requires a Rule 7.1(h) Certificate of Good Faith Consultation, which does
not include such Certificate, will be held until compliance is met. Below are a few
pleadings that require the Certificate of Good Faith Consultation. A few examples are listed
below.

Failure to comply with the Court’s above requirements regarding Motions shall result in
rejection of the motion or motion being held in abeyance until compliance has been met.

PLEASE READ ALL OF THE COURT’S MINUTE ENTRIES. LITIGANTS ARE
EXPECTED TO COMPLY WITH ORDERS AND DEADLINES IN THE MINUTE
ENTRIES.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

02/25/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

02/19/2021

Docket Code 026
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO
D. Charbagi

Deputy

VILLAGE AT GRAYHAWK OWNERS
ASSOCIATION
JOSHUA M BOLEN

v.

ALAN JONES, et al.

KATHRYN MARIE JONES
1610 W ALOE VERA DR
PHOENIX AZ 85085
JUDGE CAMPAGNOLO

MINUTE ENTRY

In order to adequately prepare for and discuss any logistical issues that may arise in the
trial of the case,

IT IS ORDERED setting a Pre-Final Trial Management Conference on October 4, 2021
at 8:30 a.m. (30 minutes allotted) before Judge Campagnolo, to discuss the effect that Covid-19
restrictions may have on the trial. Counsel and any unrepresented parties shall appear by
videoconference through Court Connect for this conference.

More information regarding Court Connect, including information regarding access to
Judge Theodore Campagnolo’s virtual courtroom through Court Connect is listed below.

You may join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone by entering (or
copying and pasting) the following URL on the address bar of your web browser:

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

02/19/2021

Docket Code 026
Form V000A
Page 2

Tinyurl.com/jbazmc-cvj16

Use of the above link can be made easier by downloading the Microsoft Teams
application first.

You can also dial in using your phone.

Teams Phone Number: +1 917-781-4590
Conference ID: 826 490 596#

More information regarding Court Connect, including an introduction video and
participation guide, can be found at: https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/court-connect/

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pre-trial deadlines for the Final Trial Management
Conference, are held in abeyance.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

02/25/2019 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

02/21/2019

Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO
K. Hartley

Deputy

VILLAGE AT GRAYHAWK OWNERS
ASSOCIATION
JOSHUA M BOLEN

v.

ALAN JONES, et al.

DAVID L ABNEY
TIMOTHY D BUTTERFIELD
JUDGE CAMPAGNOLO

MINUTE ENTRY

Courtroom 102 - NER

8:32 a.m. This is the time set for Status Conference for the purpose of discussing the case
after the Court of Appeals Mandate. Appearing on behalf of Plaintiff is counsel, Timothy
Butterfield for Joshua Bolen. Appearing on behalf of Defendant is counsel, David Abney.

A record of the proceedings is made digitally in lieu of a court reporter.

Discussion is held.

Based on the discussion held,

IT IS ORDERED the parties shall file an Amended Proposed Joint Scheduling Order no
later than March 7, 2019 in Word format. The Court is not requiring the parties to file a Joint
Report as one was filed on November 21, 2016.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

02/21/2019

Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 2

8:39 a.m. Hearing concludes.

**Counsel and Unrepresented parties please review the information below**

Becoming familiar with the Court’s requirements is crucial, failure to comply with any of
the requirements can and will delay any resolution to the issue.

Counsel are encouraged to visit Judge Campagnolo’s online profile for information on
the Court’s expectations regarding motion practices and requirements, discovery disputes, and
hearing/trial procedures at the following website:
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/JudicialBiographies/judges/profile.asp?jdgID=327&jdg
USID=12118

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

03/22/2017 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

03/21/2017

Docket Code 041
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE AIMEE L. ANDERSON
A. Wood

Deputy

VILLAGE AT GRAYHAWK OWNERS
ASSOCIATION
STEWART FOSTER SALWIN

v.

ALAN JONES, et al.

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE SET

The Court has received and reviewed Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant’s Motion to Continue
Evidentiary Hearing and Plaintiff’s Request for Rule 16(d) Scheduling Conference filed on
March 17, 2017.

IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue Evidentiary Hearing.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED converting the evidentiary hearing set on March 24, 2017
at 1:30 p.m. to a Rule 16(d) Scheduling Conference on March 24, 2017 at 1:30 p.m. (15
minutes allotted) before:

JUDGE AIMEE L. ANDERSON
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
NORTHEAST REGIONAL COURT CENTER
18380 NORTH 40TH STREET
COURTROOM 108
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85032

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

03/29/2017 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

03/24/2017

Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE AIMEE L. ANDERSON
A. Wood

Deputy

VILLAGE AT GRAYHAWK OWNERS
ASSOCIATION
STEWART FOSTER SALWIN

v.

ALAN JONES, et al.

MINUTE ENTRY

Courtroom 108-NE

1:41 p.m. This is the time set for Status Conference. Counsel Stewart Salwin is present
with Plaintiff Joy Graves, Property Manager of Village at Grayhawk Owners Association.
Defendant Kathryn Jones is neither present nor represented by counsel.

A record of the proceedings is made digitally in lieu of a court reporter.

The Court informs Plaintiff’s counsel, that the Court received a call from Defendant
Kathryn Jones, who advised the Court that she will not be present for today’s hearing.

Discussion is held.

Based on the discussion held,

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

03/24/2017

Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 2

IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant Kathryn Jones must make the garage accessible for
a termite inspection as previously agreed to between the parties when the Defendant was
represented by counsel. The termite inspection shall take place no later than April 7, 2017.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendant Kathryn Jones must make herself
available for a deposition, as previously agreed to by the parties when the Defendant was
represented by counsel. Said deposition must take place and be concluded by April 21, 2017.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Defendant Kathryn Jones fails to comply with the
Court orders, Plaintiff Village at Grayhawk Owners Association, has leave to request an Order to
Show Cause as to why Defendant Kathryn Jones should not be held in contempt of Court;
sanctions can be imposed, including, but not limited to, striking of the Defendant’s answers
allowing Plaintiff Village at Grayhawk Owners Association to proceed as way of default.

1:49 p.m. Matter concludes.

LATER:

Once the deposition of the Defendant, Kathryn Jones has taken place and the garage
inspection is completed, Plaintiff may file a Notice with the Court advising that both have taken
place. Upon receiving such notice, the Court will reset the evidentiary hearing by way of minute
entry.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

04/05/2017 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

04/03/2017

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE AIMEE L. ANDERSON
W. Tenoever

Deputy

VILLAGE AT GRAYHAWK OWNERS
ASSOCIATION
STEWART FOSTER SALWIN

v.

ALAN JONES, et al.

KATHRYN MARIE JONES
PO BOX 25722
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85255
KATHRYN MARIE JONES
19700 N 76TH ST #1053
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85255

RULING

The Court is in receipt of a filing entitled “Notice Regarding Defendant Kathryn Marie
Jones’s Request for a Stay in the Proceedings” filed March 31, 2017.

There being no good cause present,

IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant’s request for a stay in the proceedings.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

04/10/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

04/08/2020

Docket Code 905
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO
W. Tenoever

Deputy

VILLAGE AT GRAYHAWK OWNERS
ASSOCIATION
JOSHUA M BOLEN

v.

ALAN JONES, et al.

KATHRYN MARIE JONES
1610 W ALOE VERA DR
PHOENIX AZ 85085
KATHRYN MARIE JONES
PO BOX 72107
PHOENIX AZ 85050
JUDGE CAMPAGNOLO

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has received Defendant’s Request for Extensive Disability Accommodations.

Defendant will be notified of the Court’s response to her ADA request.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

04/12/2017 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

04/11/2017

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE AIMEE L. ANDERSON
A. Wood

Deputy

VILLAGE AT GRAYHAWK OWNERS
ASSOCIATION
STEWART FOSTER SALWIN

v.

ALAN JONES, et al.

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court is in receipt of an April 8, 2017 letter that was addressed to counsel for
Plaintiff and filed by Defendant on April 10, 2017.

Letters to opposing counsel and/or parties are not appropriate filings permitted by the
Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure. As such,

IT IS ORDERED striking the Letter and attachments thereto that was filed by Defendant
on April 10, 2017.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

04/18/2022 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

04/13/2022

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ALISON BACHUS
C. Lett

Deputy

VILLAGE AT GRAYHAWK OWNERS
ASSOCIATION
JOSHUA M BOLEN

v.

ALAN JONES, et al.

KATHRYN MARIE JONES
1610 W ALOE VERA DR
PHOENIX AZ 85085
JUDGE BACHUS

UNDER ADVISEMENT RULING

Pending before the Court are (1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment,
filed on September 14, 2021; (2) Plaintiff’s Motion to Preclude Expert Testimony of
Alan Jones, filed September 14, 2021; (3) Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s
Reply to its Motion for Summary Judgment, filed February 3, 2022; and (4)
Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to Strike
Plaintiff’s Reply to its Motion for Summary Judgment, filed February 28, 2022.1
The Court has considered the filings, including all statements of facts and exhibits
thereto, and the record of this case. The Court has further considered the applicable

1 Defendant has brought counterclaims. For ease of reading, the Court refers to the
parties as Plaintiff and Defendant, rather than “Plaintiff/Counterdefendant” and
“Defendant/Counterclaimant.”

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

04/13/2022

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 2

case law and Rules, as well as the parties’ arguments presented at oral argument on
January 19, 2022 (as to the Motion to Preclude) and January 28, 2022 (as to the
Motion for Summary Judgment). The Court finds and orders as follows.

Motions to Strike

Defendant moves to strike Plaintiff’s reply to its summary judgment motion
and Plaintiff’s response to the first motion to strike on timeliness grounds.

The Court first addresses the second motion to strike because it concerns the
response to the first motion to strike. Defendant’s first motion to strike was filed on
February 3, 2022. Under Rule 7.1(f)(2)(B), “any responsive memorandum must be
filed within 5 days after service of the motion.” The day of filing is not counted, per
Rule 6(a)(1). Five additional days are added when service is effectuated under Rule
5(c)(2)(C). Ariz. R. Civ. P. 6(c). Weekends are not counted in the calculation, under
Rule 6(a)(2). Thus, Plaintiff’s response to the first motion to strike was due February
17, 2022. Plaintiff did not file its response until February 22, 2022. In its response
to the second motion to strike, Plaintiff concedes its response to the first motion to
strike was late, but argues it was late due to a misunderstanding of the Court’s order
that the response time would be “governed by the Rules.” 2/2/22 Minute Entry at 2.
It is unclear to the Court how that statement was interpreted as indicating Rule 7.1(f)
did not apply. The second motion to strike is granted as good cause appears.
Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s first motion to strike is stricken, and the Court
has not considered it.

With respect to the motion to strike Plaintiff’s reply to its summary judgment
motion, Defendant’s response to the motion was filed on November 24, 2021 and
mailed the same day. Service “is complete upon the mailing,” per Rule 5(c)(2)(C).
Thus, the date of service was November 24, 2021. That day is not counted, per Rule
6(a)(1). Five additional days are added when service is effectuated under Rule
5(c)(2)(C). Ariz. R. Civ. P. 6(c). The reply was due 15 days after the response was
served. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2). Because the deadline was more than 11 days later,

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

04/13/2022

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 3

weekends and legal holidays are included in the days to be counted. Ariz. R. Civ.
P. 6(a)(2). Therefore, Plaintiff’s reply to the Defendant’s motion for summary
judgment was due December 14, 2021. The reply was not filed until December 17,
2021, and stipulation for extension of time was not granted by Defendant. Therefore,
the reply was late. The Court will grant the first motion to strike as good cause
appears. Plaintiff’s reply to the motion to summary judgment is stricken, and the
Court has not considered it.

Motion to Preclude

Plaintiff moves to preclude the expert testimony of Alan Jones under Rule
26.1 of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 702 of the Arizona Rules of
Evidence. Defendant opposes the motion.

Rule 26.1 requires that an expert’s disclosure must comply with either Rule
26.1(d)(3) or (d)(4), depending on the tier assigned to the matter. Undersigned is
not the first judicial officer assigned to this matter and reviewed the docket for the
tier assignment. It is unclear that a tier was assigned to the case, which likely
explains why Plaintiff made arguments under both rules in its motion. Based on the
Court’s review of the matter, the Court finds the case likely falls within Tier 2. In
addition, the requirements of Rule 26.1(d)(3), which applies to all cases other than
Tier 3, are less stringent than Rule 26.1(d)(4). Therefore, for purposes of resolving
this motion, the Court applies Rule 26.1(d)(3).

Rule 26.1(d)(3) provides an expert disclosure “must state” the following:

(A) the expert’s name, address, and qualifications;
(B) the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify;
(C) the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is
expected to testify;
(D) a summary of the grounds for each opinion;
(E) a statement of the compensation to be paid for the expert’s work
and testimony in the case; and

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

04/13/2022

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 4

(F) a list of all other cases in which, during the previous 4 years, the
witness testified as an expert at a hearing or trial.

Upon inquiry from the Court at oral argument and in her filings, Defendant
contended she has complied with Rule 26.1. Specifically, Defendant stated that her
February 28, 2020 filing and her filing “last summer” (which the Court, based on its
review of the docket, has determined was the filing entered on July 13, 2020 as
“supplement #2,” as that is the only other filing on the docket regarding Mr. Jones’
expert witness testimony filed in summer months) satisfied Rule 26.1. However,
there were three specific expert witness disclosures about Mr. Jones that were filed
by Defendant; they were filed on February 28, 2020; March 2, 2020; and July 13,
2020, respectively. Defendant also filed an affidavit by Mr. Jones, which was sworn
on November 22, 2021 and filed as a separate document in support of Defendant’s
opposition to the Motion to Preclude.

The Court has reviewed all documents proffered by Defendant in support of
the witness. Those documents indicate that Mr. Jones, who is Defendant’s husband,
is a “retired registered professional engineer.” His February 2020 “preliminary
report” was cursory and contained only seven points over two pages. 2/28/20
“Disclosure of areas of potential testimony & preliminary opinions of 2 experts –
Alan Jones.” One of those points was that he concurred fully in another expert’s
report and incorporated it into his report. Id. The final point was that “much more
will be addressed in the future.” Id. “Supplement #1,” which was filed March 2,
2020, consisted of approximately 75 pages of documents regarding Mr. Jones’
qualifications and background. In the July 2020 “supplement #2,” Mr. Jones listed
four points in addition to those contained in his preliminary report of February 2020,
including one indicating that he incorporated the other expert’s “updated
replacement report” in its entirety. 7/13/20 “supplement #2 to expert Alan Jones
preliminary report dated Feb. 28, 2020 with additional areas of potential testimony
with released documents to be used as exhibits at trial.” Again, the final point stated
that more was to come; specifically, “much more will be addressed in the future,
such as: subject matter jurisdiction, conditions precedent, violation of ADA
accommodations, violation of due process rights, purposeful violation and breach of

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

04/13/2022

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 5

CC&Rs, reckless & negligent acts, 27 fraudulent answers verified by the HOA board
president, multiple false light actions, personal physical injuries intentionally and
willfully inflicted, false testimony at hearing, and more.” Id. No basis for his
“expert” opinion on the Americans with Disabilities Act and other legal issues raised
was provided.

After reviewing all of Mr. Jones’ disclosures on the docket, the Court finds
that the disclosures are deficient under Rule 26.1 in various respects. Most
importantly among them, the disclosures are devoid of the substance of Mr. Jones’
full opinions and the bases for those opinions. Although supplement #2 and the
November 2021 filing contain documentation over a number of years, Mr. Jones’
enumerated statements consist mostly of conclusory statements. The Court
recognizes that Defendant has attested in her own November 2021 affidavit in
support of her opposition to this Motion that Mr. Jones’ permanent disabilities have
hampered his ability to fully provide all possible information. She further attested
that Mr. Jones would authenticate documents and provide further information as
requested on the stand. At this juncture, based on the documents before it, the Court
would be inclined to grant the Motion to Preclude. However, in light of the rulings,
infra, the trial will be vacated, and the Motion to Preclude will be denied (without
prejudice) as moot.

Motion for Summary Judgment

Rule 56(c)(3)(B) requires that a party in opposition to a motion for summary
judgment “must file a statement in the form prescribed by Rule 56(c)(3)(A),
specifying: (i) the numbered paragraphs in the moving party's statement that are
disputed; and (ii) those facts that establish a genuine dispute or otherwise preclude
summary judgment in favor of the moving party.” Rule 56(c)(3)(A) states that the
statement of facts must be “a statement separate from the supporting memorandum”
and must set forth “the specific facts relied on,” with the facts “stated in concise,
numbered paragraphs” and with citations to “the specific part of the record where
support for each fact may be found.” Plaintiff filed its Motion for Summary

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

04/13/2022

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 6

Judgment and a separate statement of facts. Defendant filed her Opposition to the
Motion, but there was no separate statement of facts filed, and the Opposition
appears to be a combination of argument and factual assertions. The Opposition
consists of a typed cover page, 22 handwritten pages, and 12 attachments. The
handwritten pages begin with Defendant’s statement, “Below are the material issues
that preclude an entry of summary judgment in [Plaintiff’s] favor.” Opp. at 1. Then,
in the 22 pages that follow, Defendant apparently responded to the paragraphs of
Plaintiff’s Statement of Facts (“SOF”) to which she did not agree. The Court
presumes this because Defendant began sections of the Opposition with a cite to a
number and a quote from the beginning of that number, which corresponded to
paragraphs of Plaintiff’s SOF. See id. (e.g., “#5 ‘In early 2015…’”). However,
Defendant’s narrative that follows is meandering, interspersed with facts that are not
pertinent to the Motion, and challenging to distill to salient legal arguments.
Defendant cited to Plaintiff’s exhibits and to her Opposition’s attachments.
However, Defendant also inserted various bits of commentary in bracketed language
such as: “[Note: When Kathryn’s bathrooms were followed with raw sewage,
Grayhawk refused to send ServPro – or any other similar service – to clean up the
mess quickly and avoid damage to Kathryn’s Unit. Kathryn herself was forced to
clean and disinfect her bathrooms herself, as Alan Jones was suffering with Valley
Fever.]” Opp. at 3. This is an example of Defendant including immaterial
allegations of fact in her Opposition. There is no memorandum of law. There is
only the 22-page statement that is essentially a disjointed factual narrative,
interwoven with quotes from Black’s Law Dictionary, Arizona Revised Statutes, and
many of Plaintiff’s previous filings in this case. Some factual assertions contain a
cite; most do not. The hundred-plus pages of attachments to the Opposition range
from photos, to an affidavit by her expert (Dr. Baker)2, to text of A.R.S. § 33-1221.

2 The Court notes that the expert affidavit regarding Dr. Baker was dated November
22, 2021, which was after the dispositive/Daubert motions deadline. Typically, any
written statement by an expert is turned over to the other side, who then has the
opportunity to have their expert review and rebut. The Court has never before seen
an affidavit by an expert that was clearly prepared in opposition to a summary
judgment motion. The usual course is to be presented with the expert opinions and

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

04/13/2022

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 7

To be sure, affidavits and “other materials that would be admissible in evidence” are
permitted. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(5)-(6). The Court has considered those documents.

Rule 56(e) provides, “When a summary judgment motion is made and
supported as provided in this rule, an opposing party may not rely merely on
allegations or denials of its own pleading. The opposing party must, by affidavits or
as otherwise provided in this rule, set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue
for trial. If the opposing party does not so respond, summary judgment, if
appropriate, shall be entered against that party.”

This Court is required to hold Defendant, who is self-represented and has
received disability accommodations from the Court upon her request, to the same
standard as counsel. Bloch v. Bentfield, 1 Ariz.App. 412, 417 (1965) (“When one
undertakes to represent himself that person is ‘entitled to no more consideration than
if’ he ‘had been represented by counsel.’ He is ‘held to the same notice of statutes
of local rules as would be attributed to a duly qualified member of the bar. Such a
rule is indispensable to the orderly and efficient administration of justice.’”) (quoting
Smith v. Rabb, 95 Ariz. 49, 53 (1963)); Maher v. Uhlman, 211 Ariz. 543, 551 (App.
2005) (“That [a party] was unrepresented did not excuse him from his burden to
diligently adhere to the court’s rules.”) (citing Homecraft Corp. v. Fimbres, 119
Ariz. 299, 301 (App. 1978)). In her filings and argument to this Court, Defendant
has shown she is able to understand and apply the Rules of Civil Procedure. Indeed,
in her motions to strike, Defendant precisely analyzed the Rules and requested that

rebuttal opinions. However, no objection to the affidavit was raised, and the Court
has considered it as part of Defendant’s Opposition. Under Rule 56(c)(5), any
affidavit in support of a summary judgment filing must set out facts that would be
admissible in evidence and properly authenticated copies of documents referred to
therein must be included. Dr. Baker’s affidavit refers to various documents not
appended thereto. The Court was not provided with an expert report for Dr. Baker
with the Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment, but his supplemental
report was included as an attachment to the Opposition to the Motion to Preclude
Mr. Jones, presumably because Mr. Jones adopted Dr. Baker’s reports in their
entirety. Therefore, Dr. Baker’s report is in the record of this case.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

04/13/2022

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 8

the Court hold Plaintiff to the letter of the Rules regarding timing and length of
filings. The Court applied the letter of those Rules and granted Defendant relief
sought, supra, as good cause appeared.

Rule 56(c)(3)(B) requires an opposition to a motion for summary judgment
that conforms to the structure of Rule 56(c)(3)(A). One purpose of that Rule is to
provide the Court with a clear record upon which the Court may make its rulings.
The record in front of this Court, in Defendant’s Opposition, is unfortunately far
from clear. There is no specific discussion of the claims and applicable law,
supported by clear reference to admissible evidence, in front of the Court. There is
no specific discussion of the counterclaims and applicable law, supported by clear
reference to admissible evidence, in front of the Court. Instead, the Court has a
document that touches on various issues here and there; does not clearly argue the
issues before the Court; does not provide clear, admissible evidence; and includes
immaterial facts.

That being said, portions of Defendant’s Opposition appear to the Court to be
focused on certain counts or claims, and the Court has attempted to consider those
as presented by Defendant. By way of example, Plaintiff moved for summary
judgment as to all of Defendant’s counterclaims; Defendant’s first counterclaim
alleged “violations” (plural) of the Federal and Arizona fair housing statutes.
Amended Ans. at 12. In her Counterclaim, Defendant alleged that Plaintiff “denied
the reasonable accommodation in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B) and A.R.S.
§ 41-1491.19(E)(2),” and the reasonable accommodation she requested “was to have
the Association pay for professional moving and temporary storage of personal
property.” Id. at ¶¶ 49, 53. The Court could not locate any admissible evidence in
support of this claim in Defendant’s opposition; for example, what would have been
the reasonable amount of moving and storage costs for reimbursement? What is the
basis for that sought amount? Defendant’s counterclaim pleading indicated Plaintiff
offered $1,200.00 and Defendant did not accept the offer, but a pleading is not
evidence. Defendant provided her recitation of facts on the issue in pages 6 through
9 of her Opposition to the motion for summary judgment. The Court notes that
Defendant declared under penalty of perjury that her Opposition was true and
correct. Opp. at 22. It is unclear whether Defendant intended for her Opposition to

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

04/13/2022

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 9

be considered as an affidavit. Under Rule 56(c)(5), any affidavit must set out facts
that would be admissible in evidence and properly authenticated copies of
documents referred to therein must be included. In her Opposition’s discussion of
the issue, Defendant directed the Court to Attachment 5 to the Opposition. The
Court reviewed Attachment 5. It consists of e-mails exchanged between counsel as
part of settlement negotiations. Rule 408 of the Arizona Rules of Evidence precludes
the admission of such evidence. This is but one example of Defendant responding
in her Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment with the broad statement
that there are genuine issues of material fact3, and then failing to clearly set forth
those specific facts with the support of admissible evidence. The opponent of a
motion for summary judgment does not raise a genuine issue of fact by merely
stating in the record that one exists. “Rather, they must show that competent
evidence is available which will justify a trial on the issue.” Flowers v. K-Mart
Corp., 126 Ariz. 495, 499 (App. 1980). This brings the Court back to Rule 56(e).

“In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the trial court considers ‘those
portions of the verified pleadings, deposition, answers to interrogatories and
admissions on file which are brought to the court’s attention by the parties.’” Tilley
v. Delci, 220 Ariz. 233, 236 (App. 2009) (quoting Choisser v. State ex rel. Herman,
12 Ariz.App. 259, 261, (1970)). However, the Tilley court acknowledged in a
footnote that there are “differing views” as to whether the Court is expected to
perform an “independent search” of the record for facts not presented by a party
opposing summary judgment. Id. at n.4. In an abundance of caution, the Court has
taken the time to do so; its search was unsuccessful.

3 The Court recognizes that its consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion vis-à-vis
Plaintiff’s own claims, versus consideration of the Motion as to the counterclaims,
varies. Compare Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Allen, 231 Ariz. 209, 213 (App. 2012)
(which applies to the motion as to Plaintiff’s claims) with Orme Sch. v. Reeves, 166
Ariz. 301, 309 (1990) (which applies to the Motion as to Defendant’s
counterclaims). Although Plaintiff’s Motion is silent on the distinction, this
particular example focuses on counterclaims.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

04/13/2022

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 10

In summary, the Court finds that Defendant failed to comply with Rule 56(c)
and summary judgment is appropriate; thus, per Rule 56(e), summary judgment
“shall” be entered against Defendant. The Court emphasizes that its ruling is not
merely a matter of “style over substance.” The Court has taken great pains to parse
through Defendant’s filings and the record, but the many issues outlined above result
in summary judgment being entered under Rule 56(e).

Finally, this is an action arising out of a contract, which entitles Plaintiff to
apply for an award of attorney’s fees. Lacer v. Navajo County, 141 Ariz. 392, 394
(App. 1984) (“A party is entitled to an award of its attorney's fees under A.R.S. §12-
341.01 if judgment in its favor is based upon the absence of the contract sued upon
by the adverse party”). In addition, the parties’ contract indicates attorney’s fees
may be awarded, and costs are awarded to Plaintiff as the successful party. “[T]he
superior court has no discretion to deny costs to the successful party.” Roddy v. Cty.
of Maricopa, 184 Ariz. 625, 627 (App. 1996).

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED granting Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Reply to
its Motion for Summary Judgment, filed February 3, 2022. Plaintiff’s reply to the
motion for summary judgment, which was filed December 17, 2021, is stricken.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Defendant’s Motion to Strike
Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Reply to its Motion
for Summary Judgment, filed February 28, 2022. Plaintiff’s response to the first
motion to strike, which was filed on February 22, 2022, is stricken.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying without prejudice and as moot
Plaintiff’s Motion to Preclude Expert Testimony of Alan Jones, filed September 14,
2021.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

04/13/2022

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 11

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment, filed on September 14, 2021.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that not later than 20 calendar days after the
entry of this order, Plaintiff may submit an application for an award of attorney’s
fees and statement of costs. If Defendant wishes to oppose the application, a
response must be filed not later than 40 calendar days after service. (This amount
of time is double what would typically be allowed, per the Court’s previous order
regarding accommodations for Defendant.) Plaintiff’s reply must be filed within 15
days from the date of service of Defendant’s response.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that not later than 20 calendar days after the
entry of this order, Plaintiff must also submit a proposed form of judgment, leaving
blank spaces for attorney’s fees and taxable costs. That form of judgment may
incorporate by reference what is said here and should include Rule 54(c) language.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

04/20/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

04/17/2020

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO
A. Wood

Deputy

VILLAGE AT GRAYHAWK OWNERS
ASSOCIATION
JOSHUA M BOLEN

v.

ALAN JONES, et al.

KATHRYN MARIE JONES
1610 W ALOE VERA DR
PHOENIX AZ 85085
COURT ADMIN-CIVIL-CCC
JUDGE CAMPAGNOLO

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has reviewed and considered Defendant/Counterplaintiff’s Request for
Extensive Disability Accommodations Prior to any Further Case Activities and Pursuant to ADA
Access Policy (the Request), the exhibits attached thereto, and the applicable law.

On March 17, 2020, Defendant completed the Maricopa County Superior Court’s ADA
form, which is attached as an exhibit to the Request. Based on her pleadings, the Court finds that
Defendant has disabilities that entitle her to ADA accommodations. Defendant is seeking the
following accommodations under the ADA:

1. Automatic, timely approval of extensions of time to respond to filings, meet deadlines,
attend hearings, etc. The Court will be notified of these automatic approvals by
telephone, either before or after the fact, but Defendant will “attempt” to notify the
Court in writing beforehand.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

04/17/2020

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2

2. Frequent breaks during hearings, depositions, etc.

3. Depositions to be limited to two hours, with a suggested accommodation that she could
attend more than one deposition per day.

4. Any deadlines or hearings that occur when she is ill, in surgery, hospitalized or
recovering from illness, surgery, or hospitalization shall be extended or rescheduled
to a sufficient time for Defendant to properly recover.

The ADA provides that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, on the basis of
disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs,
or activities of a public entity, or be subject to discrimination by any public entity.” It also
provides that “[a] public entity shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or
procedures when the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of
disability, unless the public entity can demonstrate that making the modifications would
fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity.”

Therefore, Defendant is entitled to “reasonable accommodations.” In that regard, the Court
finds that the following are reasonable accommodations to her requests:

1. The Court will timely consider all filed requests in writing for extensions of time
regarding deadlines, the filing of responses, or the rescheduling of hearings. The Court
will consider any such requests by telephonic notice in emergency situations only, with
the requirement that Defendant will have to file a written pleading regarding the
telephonic request within 15 days of the deadline or hearing, so that there will be a
written record of such request in the Court’s files.

2. The Court will allow Defendant to take reasonable and necessary breaks during
depositions and hearings as needed to accommodate Defendant’s disabilities.

3. The Court will allow depositions to be limited to a total of two hours per deposition,
which two hours shall not include breaks. This shall not prevent Plaintiff or Defendant
from seeking leave from the Court to extend a deposition to the time period allowed by
the Rules of Civil Procedure. Such a request for leave shall be filed prior to the
deposition with sufficient time to allow the other party to file a response in writing
within the time period allowed by the Rules of Civil Procedure. If this advance filing
is not feasible due to time restrictions or other constraints, a post-deposition motion for
leave to extend the time may be filed. The Court will not consider telephonic requests
to extend the deposition, while the deposition is in session. The parties can always agree

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

04/17/2020

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 3

to extend a deposition beyond two hours without Court involvement. If the deposition
breaks will encompass a lengthy period of time, such that it becomes unduly costly to
one or both parties to wait, the parties can agree to reset the remainder of the deposition
on another day, provided that the total length of the deposition will not exceed two
hours, not counting break times.

4. Only one deposition per day will be allowed. This means one deposition per day, not
one deposition per side per day. This accommodation is necessary, because the allowed
two-hour deposition period may encompass several hours, depending on the length of
reasonable and necessary breaks.

5. The Court will timely consider any requests to extend deadlines or reschedule hearings
based on Defendant’s illness, surgeries, hospitalizations, and reasonable recovery
periods from such illness, surgeries or hospitalizations. Defendant will have to file the
requests in writing ahead of time, unless she is prevented from doing so in emergency
situations. In emergency situations only, Defendant, or someone acting on her behalf,
may make such requests telephonically, but Defendant will have to follow up with the
filing of a written request for the extension or rescheduling no later than 15 days after
the illness, hospitalization, surgery or reasonable recovery therefrom. Any such
request, whether pre- or post-incident, must be accompanied by a letter or note from a
medical healthcare professional in support of the request. Any request for an extension
or rescheduling based on a recovery period after hospitalization or surgery will have to
be accompanied by a letter from the treating healthcare professional as to the reasonable
time period for such a recovery.

The Court finds that the following request is not a reasonable accommodation, and will not
be allowed:

6. The Court will not authorize an “automatic” granting of Defendant’s requests for
extensions of deadlines or rescheduling hearings. The Court has a legal duty to consider
all such requests on an individual basis, and to make a decision on a request-by-request
basis.

IT IS ORDERED that the above-stated reasonable accommodations numbered as 1 through
5 shall be in effect in this case, until further Order of the Court.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

05/10/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

05/05/2021

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO
J. Escarcega

Deputy

VILLAGE AT GRAYHAWK OWNERS
ASSOCIATION
JOSHUA M BOLEN

v.

ALAN JONES, et al.

KATHRYN MARIE JONES
1610 W ALOE VERA DR
PHOENIX AZ 85085
JUDGE CAMPAGNOLO

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has received and reviewed Defendant/Counterclaimant’s Rule 12(b)(1) Motion
to Dismiss Reply and Request for Additional Pages, filed April 28, 2021.

IT IS ORDERED rejecting Defendant/Counterclaimant’s Request to file additional pages.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant/Counterclaimant shall file a Reply within
the page limits provided in the Rules.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant/Counterclaimant’s Motion to Dismiss will
not be taken under advisement until a compliant Reply is filed.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

05/19/2017 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

05/12/2017

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE AIMEE L. ANDERSON
A. Wood

Deputy

VILLAGE AT GRAYHAWK OWNERS
ASSOCIATION
STEWART FOSTER SALWIN

v.

ALAN JONES, et al.

KATHRYN MARIE JONES
PO BOX 72107
PHOENIX AZ 85050

MINUTE ENTRY

On May 11, 2017 Defendant’s husband appeared at the Northeast Courthouse and rang
back to the chambers for the assigned division. Without disclosing who he was; he requested to
speak with court staff.

When the Judicial Assistant for the assigned Division went out into the public area,
Defendant’s husband approached the Judicial Assistant in a very loud, threatening and
accusatory manner. Among other things, Defendant’s husband accused this Judicial Officer of
committing fraud and of having ex parte communications with the opposing side in his wife’s
case.

After a few minutes, Defendant’s husband handed the judicial assistant several
documents including a May 11, 2017 filing entitled “Defendant Kathryn Marie Jones’s 3rd Notice
to the Court of a Scheduling Conflict Regarding the June 2, 2017 Hearing on Plaintiff’s
Application for an Order to Show Cause and Request for Sanctions; In Addition to a Pre-Trial
Conference.”

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

05/12/2017

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2

Defendant’s husband attempted to engage the Judicial Assistant in a conversation re: the
underlying case. The Judicial Assistant kindly reminded Defendant’s husband that she was not
permitted to discuss anything about the case with him—as he is not a party.

Due to the manner in which Defendant’s husband has presented himself,

IT IS ORDERED that only the Defendant, Kathryn Marie Jones or a licensed attorney
who has been retained by the Defendant, Kathryn Marie Jones and who has filed a notice of
appearance in this case, may contact the assigned judicial division on behalf of Defendant,
Kathryn Marie Jones. If any other person contacts the assigned division on behalf of the
Defendant, Kathryn Marie Jones; judicial staff has been instructed to terminate the telephone call
or terminate the in-person contact.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Defendant’s husband appears at the Courthouse for
any hearing that the Defendant, Kathryn Marie Jones may have in the future, a Maricopa County
Sherriff Deputy and/or Court Security, shall be present to ensure the safety of all involved.

Turning to the May 11, 2017 filing entitled, “Defendant Kathryn Marie Jones’s 3rd Notice
to the Court of a Scheduling Conflict Regarding the June 2, 2017 Hearing on Plaintiff’s
Application for an Order to Show Cause and Request for Sanctions; In Addition to a Pre-Trial
Conference”; the Court is concerned with the language contained within the “Notice” as it is
written in the third person. If the Defendant, Kathryn Marie Jones, is not the individual writing
the notices, motions and/or briefs that are being filed with the Court, than it must be done by a
licensed attorney who has filed a notice of appearance in this matter. If the filings are created by
anyone else, it equates to the unauthorized practice of law that is prohibited by State law.

With respect the contents of this most recent filing—it is not a “3rd Notice to the Court of
a scheduling conflict regarding the June 2, 2017 hearing”. Nevertheless, this Court will consider
the filing as another request to continue a hearing that has been set in this matter.
For purposes of the record, the Court provides the following:

On April 26, 2017, Plaintiff e-filed a Motion to Continue Hearing on Plaintiff’s
Application for Order to Show Cause and Request for Sanctions (Expedited Ruling Requested).
Attached to the motion was a proposed form of order for this Court to electronically issue—
should the motion be granted.

The Court found good cause for the Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue and on May 1, 2017
1issued the order Vacating the OSC hearing set on May 8, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. and continued the

1 due to the order being issued via electronic docket on May 1, 2017—the Clerk’s office electronically file stamps the order for 8:00 a.m. the
following business day

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

05/12/2017

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 3

same to June 2, 2017 at 3:30 p.m. Also, for judicial economy this Court vacated the Pretrial
Conference that was previously set on June 9, 2017 at 8:30 a.m. and set it to be heard at the same
time on June 2, 2017.

Coincidently, Defendant Kathryn Marie Jones filed a Motion to Continue the May 8,
2017 hearing on May 1, 2017, the same date the Court issued its order continuing the May 8,
2017 hearing. As the Court had already granted a Motion to Continue the May 8, 2017
hearing—no action was taken by the Court and the motion was deemed moot. Unfortunately, the
date and time set by the Court had already issued and was set at a time that was not convenient
for the Defendant, Kathryn Marie Jones.

One week later, on May 8, 2017, Defendant filed “Defendant/Counterclaimants’
Opposition to Plaintiff’s Order to Show Cause and Request for Sanction”. This filing requires no
action by this Court—and will be read and considered by the Court prior to the Order to Show
Cause hearing in this matter.

As indicated previously, the Court will consider this May 11, 2017 filing as a Motion to
Continue the June 2, 2017 hearing on Plaintiff’s Application for Order to Show Cause and
Request for Sanctions and the Pre-Trial Conference. Defendant, Kathryn Marie Jones has
advised this Court of a conflict she has on June 2, 2017 with another matter that has been set
before Judge John Hannah of this Court. Judicial staff has confirmed that there is a hearing set
before Judge Hannah on the afternoon of June 2, 2017.

Therefore good cause found,

IT IS ORDERED granting “Defendant Kathryn Marie Jones’s 3rd Notice to the Court of a
Scheduling Conflict Regarding the June 2, 2017 Hearing on Plaintiff’s Application for an Order
to Show Cause and Request for Sanctions; In Addition to a Pre-Trial Conference”—considered
by this Court as a Motion to Continue the June 2, 2017 hearing on Plaintiff’s Application for
Order to Show Cause and Request for Sanctions as well as the Pre-Trial Conference.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating the June 2, 2017 hearing and resetting the same to
June 28, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. (90 minutes), in this division.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

05/31/2022 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

05/27/2022

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ALISON BACHUS
C. Lett

Deputy

VILLAGE AT GRAYHAWK OWNERS
ASSOCIATION
JOSHUA M BOLEN

v.

ALAN JONES, et al.

KATHRYN MARIE JONES
1610 W ALOE VERA DR
PHOENIX AZ 85085
JUDGE BACHUS

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court is in receipt of Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration Re:
Under Advisement Ruling, Filed May 6, 2022.

IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant’s Motion.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

06/05/2017 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

06/01/2017

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE AIMEE L. ANDERSON
A. Wood

Deputy

VILLAGE AT GRAYHAWK OWNERS
ASSOCIATION
STEWART FOSTER SALWIN

v.

KATHRYN JONES, et al.
KATHRYN JONES
PO BOX 72107
PHOENIX AZ 85050

MINUTE ENTRY

In preparation of the upcoming evidentiary hearing in this matter, the Court discovered
that Defendant/Counter-claimant filed a document on May 26, 2017 entitled “Defendant Kathryn
Marie Jones’s Correction of the Caption to her Opposition Document Filed on May 8, 2017; and
Defendant’s Objection to the Designation of her May 1, 2017 Motion to Continue filing as
‘Moot’”.

The Court finds that the May 26, 2017 filing is not in conformance with Local Rule
3.1(e).

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED striking the May 26, 2017 filing entitled “Defendant Kathryn Marie
Jones’s Correction of the Caption to her Opposition Document Filed on May 8, 2017; and
Defendant’s Objection to the Designation of her May 1, 2017 Motion to Continue filing as
‘Moot’” for non-conformance with the local rule.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

06/01/2017

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2

With respect to any documents that either party desires to have marked for identification
by the Clerk of the Court for the June 28, 2017 evidentiary hearing in this matter,

IT IS ORDERED that all documents are to be hand-delivered to the Clerk of the Court
for the assigned division for marking, no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, June 23, 2017.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all copies of the documents are to be provided to the
opposing party no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, June 23, 2017.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

06/23/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

06/21/2021

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO
C. Lett

Deputy

VILLAGE AT GRAYHAWK OWNERS
ASSOCIATION
JOSHUA M BOLEN

v.

ALAN JONES, et al.

KATHRYN MARIE JONES
1610 W ALOE VERA DR
PHOENIX AZ 85085
JUDGE CAMPAGNOLO

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has reviewed and considered Defendant/Counterclaimant’s Rule 12(b)(1)
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction; Plaintiff’s Response thereto,
Defendant’s Amended Reply; the Complaint; the Amended Answer and Counterclaim; any other
relevant filings; and the applicable law. Neither party requested oral arguments, and the Court
finds that oral arguments would not significantly assist the Court in ruling on the Motion. See
Maricopa County Local Rule 3.2(d).

Although the Motion is brought under Rule 12(b)(1), portions of the Motion seemed to be
more akin to a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion. The Court may review its subject-matter jurisdiction at any
time. Rule 12(h)(3), ARIZ. R. CIV. P. To the extent that any of Defendant’s relief is sought under
Rule 12(b)(6), it is untimely, and shall not be considered for that purpose.

When a Court’s subject matter jurisdiction is challenged pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), the
Court may take evidence and resolve factual disputes essential to its disposition of the motion.
Gatecliff v. Great Republic Life Insurance Co., 154 Ariz. 502, 506 (App. 1987), rev’d on other

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

06/21/2021

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2

grounds, 170 Ariz. 34 (1991). To the extent that the exhibits attached to Defendant’s Motion or
Reply are relevant to the Rule 12(b)(1) claim, the Court has considered those exhibits. See
Strategic Development and Construction, Inc. v. 7th and Roosevelt Partners, LLC, 224 Ariz. 60,
¶1 (App. 2010).

Under Rule 12(b)(1), “subject matter jurisdiction” refers to a court’s statutory or
constitutional power to hear and determine a particular type of case. Church of Isaiah 58 Project
of Arizona, Inc. v. La Paz County, 233 Ariz. 460, ¶9 (App. 2013). The Court finds that it has
subject-matter jurisdiction over this case.

IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant/Counterclaimant’s Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to
Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

06/25/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

06/24/2020

Docket Code 083
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO
G. Chavez

Deputy

VILLAGE AT GRAYHAWK OWNERS
ASSOCIATION
JOSHUA M BOLEN

v.

ALAN JONES, et al.

KATHRYN MARIE JONES
1610 W ALOE VERA DR
PHOENIX AZ 85085
JUDGE CAMPAGNOLO

MINUTE ENTRY

Due to the delay in jury trials caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, this Court is not setting
any jury trials at this time, except for those cases that have already been set for trial, which have
had to be vacated or will have to be vacated due to the lack of jurors. Those cases are being reset
to 2021 at this time, due to the Court's trial calendar, which is double-booked, and sometimes
triple-booked through 2020. The Court does not believe it is fair to set jury trials on cases that
have not previously been set for trial, which would then place vacated jury trials in a subsequent
position.

Therefore, this Court is re-scheduling the trial setting conference in this case to August, at
which time the Court is hopeful it will have more clarification on the status of currently-set jury
trials, as well as the expectation of juror availability for unset civil cases. The Court believes that
it is better to reset this trial setting conference by Minute Entry, rather than requiring the parties
and/or attorneys to expend time attending a hearing that will be rescheduled.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

06/24/2020

Docket Code 083
Form V000A
Page 2

The parties have an absolute right to proceed by jury trial, and this Court is not in any
way suggesting or directing that the parties waive that Constitutional right. However, if the
parties and counsel believe that it is appropriate, they may agree to proceed by a bench trial
before this Judicial Officer, or the parties may agree to a bench trial before a Judicial Officer of
their mutual choosing, provided that the parties have obtained the agreement and availability of
an agreed-upon Judicial Officer. If the parties choose either of these options, they will need to
file a stipulation that they waive a jury trial, and choose to proceed by bench trial, as provided
above, so that this Court can issue the appropriate Minute Entry.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the trial setting conference scheduled for July 10,
2020, at 8:30 a.m. is reset to August 27, 2020, at 8:45 a.m. (15 minutes allotted). The parties shall
have their calendars available for this proceeding.

Counsel for the Plaintiff shall initiate the conference call by arranging the presence of all
parties and contacting this Division’s courtroom directly at (602) 372-0537 at the time indicated
above.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

06/30/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

06/25/2020

Docket Code 083
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO
G. Chavez

Deputy

VILLAGE AT GRAYHAWK OWNERS
ASSOCIATION
JOSHUA M BOLEN

v.

ALAN JONES, et al.

KATHRYN MARIE JONES
1610 W ALOE VERA DR
PHOENIX AZ 85085
COURT ADMIN-CIVIL-ARB DESK
JUDGE CAMPAGNOLO

MINUTE ENTRY AND AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER

The Court has reviewed and considered Defendant/Counterplaintiff Kathryn Marie Jones’
pleading entitled “Title II Americans with Disabilities Act Accommodations Request Grievance
Complaint Filed with the Presiding Judge Pursuant to ADA Access Policy Section 5
Proceedings, and Her 2nd Request for a Stay of All Further Case Activities which was Originally
Ignored by the Court Which Has Directly Caused Personal Injuries to Occur.” The Court has also
considered Ms. Jones’ previous pleadings, the Court’s Minute Entries and Orders relevant to this
pleading, and the applicable law.

On March 10, 2020, this Court granted a stay of all proceedings to April 20, 2020 to
allow Ms. Jones’ to attempt to retain legal counsel.

On April 20, 2020, the Court issued a Minute Entry regarding Ms. Jones’ ADA requests.
The Court found that Ms. Jones has disabilities that entitle her to ADA accommodations.
Pursuant to that finding, the Court basically granted all of her requests, except that it did not

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

06/25/2020

Docket Code 083
Form V000A
Page 2

grant her request that all motions for extensions or delays would be automatically granted
without the Court reviewing the requests on a motion-by-motion basis, which the Court found
not to be a reasonable accommodation.

Ms. Jones’ current pleading disputed the manner in which the Court handled her requests
in 2017, and objected to the Court’s decision not to stay this case for an indefinite period of time,
based on her disabilities. The current pleading does not contain any specific requests that would
fall within the Court’s Minute Entry of April 20, 2020, except for the general request that this
case should be stayed indefinitely. Ms. Jones did not place a time period in which a stay would
end. The Court has previously granted Ms. Jones’ request for certain ADA accommodations. The
Court cannot stay this matter indefinitely. This case has been pending since February 25, 2016, a
period in excess of four years. The Court finds that Ms. Jones’ request for an indefinite stay of
the proceedings is not a reasonable accommodation.

In reviewing the pleadings in this case, the Court realized that the Scheduling Order was
not amended to account for the period in which this matter was stayed. To ameliorate the delay,
the Court, on its own motion, is entering a third amended scheduling order.

IT IS ORDERED that the portion of Defendant/Counterplaintiff Kathryn Marie Jones’
pleading entitled “Title II Americans with Disabilities Act Accommodations Request Grievance
Complaint Filed with the Presiding Judge Pursuant to ADA Access Policy Section 5
Proceedings” is referred to Court Administration.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the portion of Defendant/Counterplaintiff Kathryn
Marie Jones’ pleading entitled “Her 2nd Request for a Stay of All Further Case Activities which
was Originally Ignored by the Court Whish Has Directly Caused Personal Injuries to Occur” is
denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Third Amended Scheduling Order is entered, as
follows:

1. The parties shall simultaneously disclose their rebuttal expert opinions by July 31,
2020.

2. The parties shall disclose all lay witnesses by July 31, 2020.

3. Each party shall provide final supplemental disclosure by August 31, 2020. This order
does not replace the parties' obligation to seasonably disclose Rule 26.1 information on
an on-going basis and as it becomes available.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

06/25/2020

Docket Code 083
Form V000A
Page 3

4. No party shall use any lay witness, expert witness, expert opinion, or exhibit at trial not
disclosed in a timely manner, except upon order of the court for good cause shown or
upon a written or an on-the-record agreement of the parties.

5. The parties will propound all discovery undertaken pursuant to Rules 33 through 36 by
July 31, 2020. The parties will complete the depositions of parties, lay witnesses, and
expert witnesses by August 15, 2020. The parties will complete all other discovery by
August 15, 2020. (“Complete discovery” includes conclusion of all depositions and
submission of full and final responses to written discovery.)

6. The deadline for a settlement conference passed on January 14, 2020, which was prior
to the filing of the Motion to Stay. The settlement conference deadline shall not be
changed.

7. The parties shall file all dispositive and Daubert motions by September 15, 2020.
Failure to file such a motion as to an expert’s qualifications by the deadline shall
constitute a waiver of (1) any objection that an expert is not qualified to render expert
testimony, and/or (2) any objection that any opinion of the expert should be excluded
under ARIZ. R. EVID. 702, and/or (3) A.R.S. §12-2604.

8. The parties previously estimated the number of days for trial to be 4 days.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Minute Entry filed on June 25, 2020 that rescheduled
the trial setting conference to August 27, 2020 at 8:45 a.m. is vacated.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the trial setting conference is rescheduled from August
27, 2020 at 8:45 a.m. to October 9, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. (15 minutes allotted). Attorneys and self-
represented parties shall have their calendars available for the conference. Plaintiff’s counsel will
initiate the conference call by arranging for the presence of all other counsel and self-represented
parties, and by calling this division at (602) 372-0537 at the scheduled time.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

06/30/2017 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

06/28/2017

Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE AIMEE L. ANDERSON
A. Wood

Deputy

VILLAGE AT GRAYHAWK OWNERS
ASSOCIATION
STEWART FOSTER SALWIN

v.

ALAN JONES, et al.

KATHRYN MARIE JONES
PO BOX 72107
PHOENIX AZ 85050

MINUTE ENTRY

Prior to commencement, Plaintiff’s exhibits 1-27 were marked for identification.

Courtroom 108-NE

9:06 a.m. This is the time set for Evidentiary Hearing. Counsel Stewart Salwin is present
with Plaintiff/Property Manager Joy Graves. Defendant Kathryn Jones is neither present nor
represented by counsel.

A record of the proceedings is made digitally in lieu of a court reporter.

Defendant Kathryn Jones having failed to appear, with no good cause shown,

IT IS ORDERED proceeding with today’s evidentiary hearing as scheduled.

Discussion held.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

06/28/2017

Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 2

Discussion is further held regarding exhibits.

Plaintiff’s exhibits 1-27 are received in evidence.

Joy Graves and Kenneth Fincel are sworn.

Opening statements.

Joy Graves, having been previously sworn, testifies.

Kenneth Fincel, having been previously sworn, testifies.

Based on the evidence presented and for reasons as fully stated on record,

IT IS ORDERED granting the Plaintiff’s Order to Show Cause and request for sanctions,
as it relates to striking the Defendant’s Answer and Cross-claim filed May 6, 2017.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Village at Grayhawk Owners Association
may proceed by way of default.

Moreover, as this Court has ordered the Defendant’s answer and counterclaim to be
struck, and the case to proceed by default,

IT IS ORDERED vacating today’s trial setting conference.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating the discovery deadlines as set forth in the
November 8, 2016 Scheduling Order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Defendant’s June 20, 2017 motions: 1.) Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint filed February 25, 2016, 2.) Defendant’s Motion to Grant
Counterclaim filed May 6, 2016, 3.) Defendant’s Request for Reimbursement of Legal Fees and
Expenses, in addition to Sanctions Levied Against Plaintiffs, and 4.) Defendant’s Request for
Reimbursement of Costs for Terminex Termite Treatment of Unit #1053.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s counsel is to submit a proposed form of
order consistent with today’s ruling no later than 5:00 p.m. on July 14, 2017 for the Court’s
review.

10:48 a.m. Matter concludes.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Filed ***

07/27/2022 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

07/25/2022

Docket Code 901
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ALISON BACHUS
C. Lett

Deputy

VILLAGE AT GRAYHAWK OWNERS
ASSOCIATION
JOSHUA M BOLEN

v.

ALAN JONES, et al.

KATHRYN MARIE JONES
1610 W ALOE VERA DR
PHOENIX AZ 85085
DOCKET - NE
JUDGE BACHUS

MINUTE ENTRY

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff/Counterdefendant’s Amended
Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, filed May 2, 2022, which is fully
briefed. After reviewing all filings associated with the application, as well as
applicable Rules and law, the Court makes the following findings and enters the
following orders:

Fees

The Court previously concluded that fees under A.R.S. § 12-341.01 may be
awarded. 4/18/22 Minute Entry at 10. Per A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A), “In any
contested action arising out of a contract, express or implied, the court may award

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

07/25/2022

Docket Code 901
Form V000A
Page 2

the successful party reasonable attorney fees.” Because Plaintiff’s motion for
summary judgment was granted, Plaintiff is the successful party.

The Court has considered the factors set forth in Associated Indemnity Corp.
v. Warner, 143 Ariz. 585, 589 (App. 1983), and finds as follows:

1. Whether the unsuccessful party’s claim or defense was meritorious. The
Court does not make a finding on whether Defendant’s claims were meritorious.
The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment under Rule 56(e) of
the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court notes that to the extent
Defendant’s opposition to the instant application for fees and costs is a motion for
reconsideration, that motion is denied.

2. Whether the litigation could have been avoided or settled and the successful
party’s efforts were completely superfluous in achieving the results. Based on its
review of the extensive filings in this case, the Court concludes litigation could
have been settled years ago. Some actions by Defendant actions unnecessarily
prolonged the matter. Plaintiff’s efforts were not superfluous to achieving the
results. Indeed, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was filed as the parties
continued to disagree as to the fundamental issues in the case. Ultimately, the
Court concluded in its Order filed April 18, 2022 that Defendant failed to comply
with Rule 56(c) and summary judgment was appropriate.

3. Whether a fee award would be an extreme hardship. In her Opposition,
Defendant claimed she only has access to her modest Social Security income.
Plaintiff disagreed. After considering the filings, the Court does not conclude an
extreme hardship would result from a fee award.

4. Whether the successful party prevailed with respect to all of the relief
sought. Plaintiff prevailed in the litigation, as its motion for summary judgment
was granted. Again, the motion was granted under Rule 56(e) as a result of
Defendant’s failure to comply with Rule 56(c).

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

07/25/2022

Docket Code 901
Form V000A
Page 3

5. Whether the matter presented a novel legal question. The matter did not
present particularly novel legal questions. The Court also finds the issues were not
complex.

6. Whether the award would discourage other parties with tenable claims or
defenses from litigating them. The Court does not find that an award would
discourage parties with tenable claims or defenses from pursuing them.
The Court finds that an award of fees is appropriate under A.R.S. § 12-
341.01(A). The Court does not conclude that a fees award is appropriate under any
other theory claimed by Plaintiff.

The next issue is to determine the amount of reasonable attorney’s fees.
Although Defendant did not contest the reasonableness of any of the fees
requested, and instead devoted her Opposition to other issues (including whether
fees should be awarded at all), the Court has reviewed the entries in counsels’
affidavits for reasonableness.

In support of its amended application for fees, Plaintiff provided the Court
with an affidavit by each of its counsel (Mssrs. Bolen and Humble, respectively).
Mr. Bolen’s amended affidavit covered the six-year period of this entire litigation,
including appeals and special actions brought by Defendant, and the total
contained at the end was $139,131.50. Mr. Humble’s affidavit began in 2019 and
ended in 2022, with a total “billable” at the end of $96,857.60. However, in the
amended application, the requested for “counterclaims” was $93,117.00. There
was no explanation as to the difference in the figures. When the Court added the
amount of requested fees at the end of Bolen’s affidavit ($139.131.50) and the
amount of fees for counterclaims ($93,117.00), the total amount of requested fees
came to $232,248.50.1

1 Unfortunately, the amended application contained no breakdown for how counsel
arrived at the total, sought amount of fees and costs. Specifically, the body of the
amended application first asked for a total of $242,034.75, then went on to request
$93,117.00 in fees and $7,637.33 in costs for the counterclaims brought by

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

07/25/2022

Docket Code 901
Form V000A
Page 4

At the outset, the Court observes that the total requested amount of fees is
substantial – nearly a quarter of a million dollars billed by multiple lawyers and
paralegals for litigation that was not particularly novel or complex. That being
said, the litigation has gone on for years and Defendant has been, at times, less
than cooperative in moving the matter forward. The Complaint was filed in
February 2016. A previous judicial officer denied a request for a “stay” after
Defendant’s then-counsel was disbarred, which led to another judicial officer
entering default judgment against Defendant in December 2017. Defendant’s
appeal of that sequence of events was successful. Upon remand in January 2019,
the current round of litigation commenced. The successful motion for summary
judgment, which concerned both Plaintiff’s claims and Defendant’s counterclaims,
was filed in September 2021 and granted in April 2022.

“[W]here a party has accomplished the result sought in the litigation, fees
should be awarded for time spent even on unsuccessful legal theories. Where a
party has achieved only partial or limited success, however, it would be
unreasonable to award compensation for all hours expended, including time spent
on the unsuccessful issues or claims. For example, when the plaintiff sues on a
note, and the defendant successfully counterclaims, fees awarded to the plaintiff
may be reduced to reflect the defendant’s success.” Schweiger v. China Doll

Defendant. There was no mention of fees and costs for Plaintiff’s affirmative
claims, and there was no explanation as to how or why the fees and costs were
delineated in that fashion. Then, in its conclusion, the application requested
$242,034.75 in fees and costs. The application gave no breakdown for that
number. Instead, the application referred the Court to “Exhibit A.” Exhibit A
began with a Declaration by Mr. Humble and his billing entries, but the entries did
not total the sought amount of $93,117.00. The Court went on to read the billing
entries for Mr. Bolen, which totaled $139.131.50. Therefore, the Court was able to
piece together that $242,034.75 represents $139.131.50 in fees for Mr. Bolen +
$93,117.00 in fees for Mr. Humble + $2,148.92 in costs for Mr. Bolen + $7,637.33
in costs for Mr. Humble. A clear breakdown in an application for fees and costs
would conserve judicial resources.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

07/25/2022

Docket Code 901
Form V000A
Page 5

Restaurant, Inc., 138 Ariz. 183, 189 (App. 1983) (citing Pioneer Constructors v.
Symes, 77 Ariz. 107, 112 (1954)). “There is no precise rule or formula for making
these determinations.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 436 (1983) (quoted in
Schweiger, 138 Ariz. at 189).

Here, Plaintiff was successful in the totality of the litigation, despite its
initial default judgment being reversed by the Court of Appeals.2 However, the
Court finds it appropriate to reduce the requested fees.

First, the fees award should not reward Plaintiff for its lack of success before
the Court of Appeals on Defendant’s second appeal. Nor will the Court award fees
expended by Plaintiff for the aspects of the litigation that were ultimately reversed
on appeal.3 Consequently, the Court disallows the following entries, for a total of
$38,320.00:

 Bolen affidavit: All entries between April 4, 2017 (beginning with the
entry “Review and Analyze Notice Regarding Defendant Kathryn Jones’s
Request for a Stay in the Proceedings”) and August 30, 2017 (ending
with the entry “Leave detailed voicemail with J. Graves discussing the
Notice of Appeal from K. Jones”), with the exception of two entries on
April 12, 2017. Those two entries are “Review and analyze minute entry
from the court striking letters filed my (sic) K. Jones from the record”
(for counsel) and “Receive and review Minute Entry from Court striking
Jones’ letters” (for a paralegal). The Court finds the latter two entries are
duplicative and the Court does not find that .4 hours by two people was

2 Defendant filed two appeals. Although Defendant did not prevail on her first
appeal, Defendant did obtain a reversal of the default judgment against her in her
second appeal (filed in December 2017 and reversed and remanded in January
2019).
3 In so doing, the Court recognizes that a handful of entries reflect that settlement
efforts were made during that period of time. However, those efforts were made
against the backdrop of Plaintiff’s ultimately unsuccessful position on appeal, and
the Court declines to award fees for that period of time.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

07/25/2022

Docket Code 901
Form V000A
Page 6

required to analyze that Order, given the Order’s simplicity. The
paralegal’s time is disallowed. The total amount of fees disallowed for
this period is $8,784.50.

 Bolen affidavit: All entries from September 8, 2017 through October 5,
2017, for a total of $1,812.50.

 Bolen affidavit: All entries from December 11, 2017 through January 2,
2019, with the exception of one entry on December 11, 2017 labeled
“Analyze letter from Court of Appeals dismissing appeal.” The Court
allows the latter entry because it pertains to an appeal by Defendant that
was unsuccessful. The total disallowed for this period is $27,723.00.
Next, the Court disallows fees expended for Plaintiff’s reply to its motion for
summary judgment because the Court struck the reply upon Defendant’s successful
motion to do so. The Court further disallows fees associated with both of
Defendant’s motions to strike because those motions were granted by the Court. It
is baffling to the Court why Plaintiff claimed these fees given its reply was stricken
and the motions to strike were granted. The total disallowed is $8,183.50. This
figure represents the exclusion of the following fees claimed:

 Bolen affidavit: All entries from November 30, 2021 through December
16, 2021 (entry labeled “Email exchanges with Scott Humble and Norm
Sagon regarding Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment”), with the
exception of a December 6, 2021 entry labeled “Call with Scott Humble
regarding Reply to Motion to Preclude Alan Jones.”
 Bolen affidavit: All entries from February 4, 2022 through March 3,
2022, with the exception of a March 3, 2022 entry labeled “Receipt and
review disclosure regarding Jones selling her Unit.”

 Bolen affidavit: The March 8, 2022 entry labeled “Review and modify
second motion to strike response.”

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

07/25/2022

Docket Code 901
Form V000A
Page 7

 Humble affidavit: December 2, 2021 entries labeled “Review and
analyze portion of Jones’ 151 page response with exhibits to motion for
summary judgment in preparation for reply” and “Review and analyze
potential caselaw to support argument regarding non-material facts in
preparation for reply in support of motion for summary judgment.”

 Humble affidavit: December 3, 2021 entry labeled “Review and analyze
additional exhibits from Jones’ response to motion for summary
judgment in preparation for reply.”

 Humble affidavit: Entries beginning on December 7, 2021 through
December 16, 2021.

 Humble affidavit: January 28, 2022 entry labeled “Communicate (other
outside counsel) by telephone with co-counsel T. Butterfield regarding
possible motion to strike” through January 31, 2022 entry labeled
“Review and analyze options relating to Jones’ request for motion to
strike in preparation for possible withdrawal of reply.”

 Humble affidavit: February 15, 2022 entry labeled “Review and analyze
court docket to determine any filings by Jones.”

 Humble affidavit: Entries beginning on February 15, 2022 labeled
“Draft/revise email to co-counsel J. Bolen regarding response to pending
motion to strike from Jones” through March 4, 2022 entry labeled
“Draft/revise email to co-counsel J. Bolen regarding strategy.”
The Court further disallows fees regarding the sale of Defendant’s
condominium after the Court issued its ruling on the motion for summary
judgment. Whether the unit was sold had no bearing on the outcome of the

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

07/25/2022

Docket Code 901
Form V000A
Page 8

litigation at that point.4 Thus, the fees for the entry on April 20, 2022 labeled
“Receipt and review new owner information” ($174.00) on the Bolen affidavit are
disallowed.

After considering each entry in the affidavits, the case history, the number
and qualifications of counsel, the hours expended, the nature of the claims, and the
relevant case law, the Court finds attorney’s fees in the amount of $150,000.00 to
be reasonable and appropriate.

Costs

Plaintiff has requested a total of $9,786.25 in costs, which represents
$2,148.92 in costs incurred by Mr. Bolen’s firm and $7,637.33 in costs incurred by
Mr. Humble’s firm. The Court has reviewed the statements of costs filed pursuant
to A.R.S. § 12-346. Defendant did not object to specific costs; as noted above,
Defendant argued other points in her Opposition, including whether the Court
should award costs at all. She did not challenge specific line items. However,
upon review of the Bolen statement of costs, the Court finds that certain costs
should be excluded. Those costs are:

 Filing fees for documents filed in support of Plaintiff’s ultimately
unsuccessful default judgment will not be awarded. These fees are:
TurboCourt $6.70 on 4/18/17 + TurboCourt $6.70 on 4/18/17 + TurboCourt
$6.70 on 4/26/17 + TurboCourt $6.70 on 8/23/17 + TurboCourt $6.70 on
8/23/17 = $33.50.

 Similarly, filing fees for Plaintiff’s unsuccessful position on Defendant’s
second appeal will not be awarded. These fees are: Clerk of the Arizona
$140.00 on 2/13/18 + TurboCourt $6.70 on 5/24/18 + TurboCourt $10.61 on

4 The Court disagrees with Defendant’s assertion in her Opposition that because
she sold the property in question, the case is “moot.” The sale of the property in
2022 does not reverse the course of the litigation and what transpired between
2016 and 2022.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

07/25/2022

Docket Code 901
Form V000A
Page 9

6/28/18 + TurboCourt $6.70 on 10/1/18 + TurboCourt $10.61 on 10/31/18 +
TurboCourt $10.61 on 11/1/18 + TurboCourt $10.61 on 11/1/18 = $195.84.

 It also appears Plaintiff is attempting to recoup its costs for the reply that
was stricken and its responses to unsuccessful motions to strike. The Court
does not find those costs should be awarded. These costs are TurboCourt
$6.70 on 12/16/21 + TurboCourt $6.70 on 2/22/22 + TurboCourt $6.70 on
3/8/22 = $20.10.

 The process server fee, postage, and courier service fees that were incurred
in support of the proceedings that were reversed in Defendant’s second
appeal will not be awarded. Those fees are $65.40 Nationwide Legal Ser on
5/31/17 + $30.00 Nationwide Legal Ser on 6/26/17 + $40.00 Nationwide
Legal Ser on 9/22/17 + $12.84 UPS on 6/23/17 + $6.71 Postage on 4/26/17
+ $6.71 Postage on 4/26/17 + $6.71 Postage on 4/26/17 + $6.92 Postage on
9/28/17 + $6.92 Postage on 9/28/17 + $6.92 Postage on 9/28/17 + $6.92
Postage on 9/28/17 = $196.05.

 Certified copy and judgment costs for the default judgment that was reversed
on appeal will not be awarded. Those costs are $29.50 Clerk of the Superior
on 9/29/17 + $10.00 Maricopa County Recorder on 10/5/17 = $39.50.

 Transcript costs incurred in support of Plaintiff’s unsuccessful position on
appeal will not be awarded. Plaintiff listed that total cost as $135.30.

 Finally, “legal fees” payable to “Ahwatukee Legal Office” in the amount of
$841.52 on March 11, 2019 were billed. No further explanation was
provided, and the Court cannot determine what those additional “legal fees,”
when Plaintiff had multiple counsel at that point, would be.
Thus, the total amount of fees disallowed from the Bolen statement of costs
is $1,461.81 ($33.50 + $195.84 + $20.10 + $196.05 + $39.50 + $135.30 +

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

07/25/2022

Docket Code 901
Form V000A
Page 10

$841.52). After subtracting the amount of disallowed fees ($1,461.81) from Mr.
Bolen’s requested fees ($2,148.92), the amount to be awarded vis-à-vis Mr. Bolen
is $687.11.

The Court does not disallow any costs listed by Mr. Humble.

Thus, the total amount of costs to be awarded in this matter is $8,324.44
($687.11 + $7,637.33).

Conclusion

Finally, the Court declines to change, at this extremely late stage of the
litigation, its description of Defendant from “Kathryn Jones” to “Kathryn Jones,
Trustee of the KMJ Trust,” as Plaintiff suggested in its application for fees and
proposed form of judgment. While it may be true that Ms. Jones is the trustee and
sole beneficiary of the KMJ Trust, the KMJ Trust is not a named party to this case.
Indeed, a trust may not even represent itself in litigation. Plaintiff sued Defendant
Kathryn Jones in her personal capacity. The Court will enter judgment against
Kathryn Jones.

Therefore, based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff shall be awarded $150,000.00 in reasonable
attorney’s fees, and $8,324.44 in recoverable costs, for a total amount of
$158,324.44.

No matters remain pending in this case. This is a final judgment under Ariz.
R. Civ. P. 54(c). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Amended
Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, filed May 2, 2022.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED entering judgment against Plaintiff and in
favor of Plaintiff and its counsel, Joshua Bolen and Scott Humble, in the amount of
$158,324.44, plus interest at the legal rate of 6.75% as of this date, for Plaintiff’s

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

07/25/2022

Docket Code 901
Form V000A
Page 11

contributions to Defendants’ reasonable attorney fees and costs as ordered in this
Court’s orders.

/ s / ALISON S. BACHUS

HONORABLE ALISON S. BACHUS
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

07/28/2017 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

07/27/2017

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE AIMEE L. ANDERSON
A. Wood

Deputy

VILLAGE AT GRAYHAWK OWNERS
ASSOCIATION
STEWART FOSTER SALWIN

v.

ALAN JONES, et al.

KATHRYN MARIE JONES
PO BOX 72107
PHOENIX AZ 85050

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has read and considered the proposed Order Granting Plaintiff’s Application
for Order to Show Cause that was e-filed with the Court on July 7, 2017.

IT IS ORDERED granting the proposed order. The Court has signed the Order granting
Plaintiff’s Application for Order to Show Cause todays date, July 27, 2017.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

08/04/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

08/03/2021

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ALISON BACHUS
C. Lett

Deputy

VILLAGE AT GRAYHAWK OWNERS
ASSOCIATION
JOSHUA M BOLEN

v.

ALAN JONES, et al.

KATHRYN MARIE JONES
1610 W ALOE VERA DR
PHOENIX AZ 85085
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION - CCC
JUDGE BACHUS

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court is in receipt of Ms. Jones’ Motion for Reconsideration, filed July 16, 2021, and
Request for ADA Accommodations due to New, Increasing Disabilities and Medical
Comorbidities, filed July 7, 2021. The Court has reviewed the filings, applicable case law and
rules, and enters the following orders:

First, the motion for reconsideration is denied, as no good cause appears.

Second, as to the July 7, 2021 ADA accommodations request contains the following three
requests:

1. “At least twice the designated length of time to research, write, type and file motions,
responses, replies, etc.”: In his October 28, 2020 minute entry, Judge Campagnolo
granted Ms. Jones’ request for this accommodation. Specifically, he ordered that Ms.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

08/03/2021

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2

Jones “shall be allowed twice the amount of time than provided by the Rules of Civil
Procedure to file a response or reply to any pleadings in this matter.” 10/28/20 Minute
Entry at 2. Deadlines were then set for motions. Id. The Court finds this remains a
reasonable accommodation under the ADA. The order of Judge Campagnolo granting
Ms. Jones twice the amount of time allowed under the Rules is affirmed.

2. “To file all documents in 14-point font – thus automatically approving her necessity to
file more than the designated page limits”: The Court observes the request for
accommodations was typed in 14-point font. Ms. Jones will be allowed to type her
filings in 14-point font, but this accommodation is not a blanket approval for an unlimited
page limit. For motions and responses, the page limit for Ms. Jones shall be expanded
from 17 to 22 pages. For replies, Ms. Jones’ page limit shall be expanded from 11 pages
to 14 pages. The expansions are allowed to accommodate the 14-point font. To set those
limitations, the Court has tested documents in Word with both font sizes (allowed under
the Rules and expanded to 14-point font) to determine the increased page needs for the
same text with increased font size.

3. “All court proceedings requiring [Ms. Jones’] presence (whether in person or by
telephone) be limited to three consecutive hours per day”: In support of this request, Ms.
Jones points to the deposition orders contained in the Court’s April 17, 2020 minute entry
about ADA accommodations. In that minute entry, the Court limited depositions to be a
total of two hours per deposition, one deposition per day, with breaks to be
allowed. 4/17/20 Minute Entry at 2-3. As the Court noted in the April 2020 minute
entry, the ADA provides that a public entity must make “reasonable modifications in
policies, practices, or procedures when the modifications are necessary to avoid
discrimination on the basis of disability, unless the public entity can demonstrate that
making the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program,
or activity.” Id. at 2. However, a jury trial is not the same as a deposition. Deposition
guidelines would not apply to a trial day, and that was apparent in Judge Campagnolo’s
order setting trial. He set trial, with the shortened day, with breaks, for the lengthy period
of time that it is set (11 days) after already having set limits on depositions. The Court
has carefully reviewed the orders of Judge Campagnolo. When trial was set, Judge
Campagnolo built in certain, reasonable accommodations, including the shortened trial
day. See 10/28/20 Minute Entry at 3 (“Trial hours will be from 9:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
and 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. (with a lunch recess from noon to 1:30 p.m. and two 15-
minute recesses, daily), Monday through Thursday”). The further requested modification
to only have three hours of total time in court per day is not reasonable to how the Court
must function with respect to administering a jury. The Court has not received sufficient
cause to deviate so far from how the Court tries cases to a jury. Of course, as Judge
Campagnolo ordered in April 2020, the Court “will allow [Ms. Jones] to take reasonable

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

08/03/2021

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 3

and necessary breaks during [] hearings as needed to accommodate” her
disabilities. 4/17/20 Minute Entry at 2. That order includes trial. To determine
reasonableness, documentation from Ms. Jones’ medical provider(s) would greatly assist
the Court. Requesting documentation of same is permissible under the ADA.

Judge Campagnolo’s prior orders, including those regarding ADA accommodations, are
affirmed, except where superseded or vacated by this Court. Previously-ordered deadlines for
motions and trial remain in place. The trial date is a firm date. Trial will go forward on the dates
ordered by Judge Campagnolo, during the hours specified by Judge Campagnolo (with needed
breaks), unless the parties reach settlement. If the matter is settled, the parties shall promptly
notify the Court and trial will be vacated.

In addition, this Division has been contacted by the Superior Court’s Alternative Dispute
Resolution (ADR) office, which has informed the Court that Ret. Judge Fields has requested
another mediator be appointed. The Court will grant the request and order the appointment of a
replacement mediator. Consequently, on its own motion, the Court will extend the time for ADR
to be completed by 60 days. ADR shall be completed no later than October 31, 2021. Both
parties shall fully cooperate with the ADR process. The Court notes this is the third mediator
appointment that is being made in this matter; no further appointments will follow.

It is so ordered.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

08/13/2019 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

08/09/2019

Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO
K. Hartley

Deputy

VILLAGE AT GRAYHAWK OWNERS
ASSOCIATION
JOSHUA M BOLEN

v.

ALAN JONES, et al.

SHARON S MOYER
JUDGE CAMPAGNOLO

MINUTE ENTRY

On the Court’s own motion,

IT IS ORDERED setting telephonic Status/Scheduling Conference on August 14, 2019 at
8:45 a.m. (15 minutes allotted) for the purpose of discussing the status of the case and to set
deadlines. Counsel for Plaintiff shall initiate the telephonic conference by first arranging the
presence of all other counsel on the conference call and by calling this division at: (602) 372-0537
no later than 5 minutes before the scheduled time. The parties and counsel shall not be
permitted to participate in conferences via cell phones or speakerphone.

**Counsel please review the information below**

Becoming familiar with the Court’s requirements is crucial, failure to comply with any of
the requirements can and will delay any resolution to the issue.

Counsel are encouraged to visit Judge Campagnolo’s online profile for information on
the Court’s expectations regarding motion practices and requirements, discovery disputes, and
hearing/trial procedures at the following website:
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/JudicialBiographies/judges/profile.asp?jdgID=327&jdg
USID=12118

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

08/15/2022 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

08/12/2022

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ALISON BACHUS
C. Lett

Deputy

VILLAGE AT GRAYHAWK OWNERS
ASSOCIATION
JOSHUA M BOLEN

v.

ALAN JONES, et al.

KATHRYN MARIE JONES
1610 W ALOE VERA DR
PHOENIX AZ 85085
JUDGE BACHUS

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff’s proposed form of Final Judgment.

IT IS ORDERED that the Court declines to sign Plaintiff’s proposed form, as a signed
judgment was issued July 27, 2022.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

08/21/2019 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

08/14/2019

Docket Code 002
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO
K. Hartley

Deputy

VILLAGE AT GRAYHAWK OWNERS
ASSOCIATION
TIMOTHY D BUTTERFIELD

v.

ALAN JONES, et al.

SHARON S MOYER
JUDGE CAMPAGNOLO

MINUTE ENTRY

Courtroom 102 - NE

8:49 a.m. This is the time set for a telephonic Status Conference for the purpose of
discussing the status of the case and to set deadlines. Counsel, Timothy Butterfield appears on
behalf of Plaintiff. Counsel, Mark Buchanan and Sharon Moyer appear on behalf of Defendant.

A record of the proceedings is made digitally in lieu of a court reporter.

Discussion is held.

Based on the matters discussed,

IT IS ORDERED vacating the Trial Setting Conference set for September 13, 2019. A
new Trial Setting Conference will be set once the Court approves the amended Scheduling Order.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

08/14/2019

Docket Code 002
Form V000A
Page 2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file a Joint Report and an amended
Scheduling Order no later than September 13, 2019.

8:53 a.m. Hearing concludes.

**Counsel and Unrepresented parties please review the information below**

Becoming familiar with the Court’s requirements is crucial, failure to comply with any of
the requirements can and will delay any resolution to the issue.

Counsel are encouraged to visit Judge Campagnolo’s online profile for information on
the Court’s expectations regarding motion practices and requirements, discovery disputes, and
hearing/trial procedures at the following website:
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/JudicialBiographies/judges/profile.asp?jdgID=327&jdg
USID=12118

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

08/21/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

08/20/2020

Docket Code 083
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO
G. Chavez

Deputy

VILLAGE AT GRAYHAWK OWNERS
ASSOCIATION
JOSHUA M BOLEN

v.

ALAN JONES, et al.

KATHRYN MARIE JONES
1610 W ALOE VERA DR
PHOENIX AZ 85085
JUDGE CAMPAGNOLO

MINUTE ENTRY

On the Court’s own motion,

IT IS ORDERED vacating the Telephonic Trial Setting Conference on October 9, 2020,
at 10:30 a.m. and resetting same to October 16, 2020, at 8:30 a.m. (15 minutes allotted) before
Judge Theodore Campagnolo. Counsel and any unrepresented parties shall have their calendars
available for this conference. Counsel for Plaintiff shall initiate the conference call by arranging
the presence of all parties and contacting this Division’s courtroom directly at (602) 372-0537 at
the time indicated above.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

08/25/2017 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

08/24/2017

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE AIMEE L. ANDERSON
A. Wood

Deputy

VILLAGE AT GRAYHAWK OWNERS
ASSOCIATION
STEWART FOSTER SALWIN

v.

ALAN JONES, et al.

KATHRYN MARIE JONES
PO BOX 72107
PHOENIX AZ 85050
COMM. HOLDING

MINUTE ENTRY

This division has received Plaintiff’s e-filed Application/Motion for Default Judgment
against Defendant(s) Kathryn Marie Jones in the above-captioned case.

IT IS ORDERED that no action will be taken by this division on the above-referenced
document(s).

The parties are advised that commissioners handle Rule 55(b) Default Judgment
proceedings and that the default proceedings in this matter are to be heard by Commissioner
Rees.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all documents necessary to support the entry of a
default judgment must be e-filed.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

08/24/2017

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2

Pursuant to Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 2010-117, default judgment
packets are not permitted to be e-filed. Accordingly, parties are directed to hand-deliver a
default coversheet and copies of the necessary filed documents to the commissioner’s division
for the entry of a default judgment.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, no further action will be taken by the assigned
commissioner until the necessary filed documents and coversheet are delivered to the division.

The parties/counsel can find the default judgment coversheet on the Court’s website at:
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/SuperiorCourt/CivilDepartment/forms.asp

The parties/counsel can find additional information in the form of frequently asked
questions at:
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/SuperiorCourt/CivilDepartment/howDoI.asp

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

09/15/2022 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

09/14/2022

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ALISON BACHUS
C. Lett

Deputy

VILLAGE AT GRAYHAWK OWNERS
ASSOCIATION
JOSHUA M BOLEN

v.

ALAN JONES, et al.

KATHRYN MARIE JONES
P O BOX 72107
PHOENIX AZ 85850
JUDGE BACHUS

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court is in receipt of (1) “Preliminary Motion to Intervene Pursuant to
Rules 1, 19, 24a, 24b, and 60; Extraordinary Request for Immediate Stay or
Injunction to Preclude Manifest Loss of Appeal Rights by Defendant, Kathryn
Jones, Request for Immediate Telephonic Hearing re: ADA Accommodations to
Permit Completion of Motion.,” filed August 19, 2022 by third party Alan Jones;
(2) “Defendant/Counterclaimant’s Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Subject Matter Jurisdiction,” filed by Kathryn Jones on August 22, 2022; and (3)
Plaintiff’s “Notice to Court Regarding Post-Judgment Motions by Defendant and
Third Party,” filed September 7, 2022.

On July 27, 2022, the Court entered final judgment in this case with Rule
54(c) language. The motions filed by Mr. Jones and Ms. Jones followed, and the
Court was holding those for responses when the Notice of Appeal was filed. Upon

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

09/14/2022

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2

filing of the Notice of Appeal, jurisdiction over this matter went to the Court of
Appeals. “A superior court ‘retains jurisdiction to act so long as that act cannot
negate the decision in a pending appeal or frustrate the appellate process.’” Bank
of New York Mellon v. Dodev, 246 Ariz. 1, 2 (App. 2018) (quoting State v.
O’Connor, 171 Ariz. 19, 22 (App. 1992) and citing Ariz. Corp. Comm'n v. Citizens
Util. Co., 120 Ariz. 184, 193 (1978)). To address the motions brought by
Mr. Jones and Ms. Jones would run afoul of that case law. The Court notes,
however, that it corrected a scrivener’s error in the September 7 judgment.

At this juncture, without direction from the Court of Appeals, this Court will
take no further action on this matter.

It is so ordered.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

10/12/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

10/04/2021

Docket Code 064
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ALISON BACHUS
C. Lett

Deputy

VILLAGE AT GRAYHAWK OWNERS
ASSOCIATION
JOSHUA M BOLEN

v.

ALAN JONES, et al.

KATHRYN MARIE JONES
1610 W ALOE VERA DR
PHOENIX AZ 85085
JUDGE BACHUS

MINUTE ENTRY

LET THE RECORD REFLECT that pursuant to a disability
accommodation for a litigant in this matter, all minute entries issued shall be issued
with a minimum of 14-point sized font.

Courtroom 111 - NER

8:30 a.m. This is the time set for a Trial Planning Conference via Court
Connect. Counsel Scott Humble appears on behalf of Village at Grayhawk
Owners Association in its role as Counter Defendant in this matter.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

10/04/2021

Docket Code 064
Form V000A
Page 2

Defendant/Counterclaimaint Kathryn Marie Jones appears on her own behalf. All
parties appear via the Court Connect platform.

A record of the proceedings is made digitally in lieu of a court reporter.

Discussion is held regarding the status of the case.

Today’s Trial Planning Conference was set prior to pretrial deadlines to
discuss the effect that COVID-19 restrictions have regarding jury trials.

LET THE RECORD REFLECT that the Maricopa County Superior Court
remains under the COVID-19 restrictions set forth by the Arizona Supreme Court.

Discussion is held regarding current jury trial procedures.

8:36 a.m. Counsel Timothy D. Butterfield appears on behalf of Village at
Grayhawk Owners Association in its role as Plaintiff in this matter.

Discussion continues.

Based on matters presented to the Court, and for reasons stated on the
record,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Jones’ Response to the Motion for
Summary Judgment shall be due 60 days from September 25, 2021.

THE COURT NOTES Defendant Jones objects to the September 25, 2021
date.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Jones’ Response to the
Motion to Preclude Expert Testimony of Alan Jones shall be due 60 days from
September 22, 2021.

This resolves Defendant Jones’ Motion filed September 24, 2021.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

10/04/2021

Docket Code 064
Form V000A
Page 3

Defendant Jones makes an oral motion for an order that documents provided
to her be in 14-point font.

IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court set in 14-point font for all minute
entries in this matter moving forward.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the same page limitations shall be in
place for Plaintiff/Counter Defendant from this date forward. For motions and
responses, the page limit is expanded from 17 to 22 pages. For replies, the page
limit shall be expanded from 11 to 14 pages.

Discussion is held regarding the briefing schedule. The pending Motion for
Summary Judgment will not be resolved prior to the trial date.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED vacating the 11-day Jury Trial set to
commence on November 29, 2021 and resetting same to May 9, 2023 at 9:00 a.m.
in this Division before:

The Honorable Alison S. Bachus
Northeast Regional Court Center
Courtroom 111
18380 North 40th Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85032
Phone: 602-506-7569

Trial days in this matter will be as follows: May 9, May 10, May 11, May
15, May 16, May 17, May 18, May 22, May 23, May 24, and May 25, 2023.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating Final Trial Management on
November 5, 2021 and resetting a Final Trial Management Conference for April 7,
2023 at 9:00 a.m. (time allotted: 1 hour) in this Division. All counsel (and any
self-represented party) shall appear in person unless otherwise ordered.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

10/04/2021

Docket Code 064
Form V000A
Page 4

9:35 a.m. Matter concludes.

NOTE: All Court proceedings are recorded digitally and not by a court
reporter. Pursuant to Local Rule 2.22, if a party desires a court reporter for any
proceeding in which a court reporter is not mandated by Arizona Supreme Court
Rule 30, the party must submit a written request to the assigned judicial officer at
least ten (10) judicial days in advance of the hearing, and must pay the authorized
fee to the Clerk of the Court at least two (2) judicial days before the proceeding.
The fee is $140 for a half-day and $280 for a full day.

Requests for interpreters, court reporters or video conference must be made
at least fourteen (14) days prior to the trial/hearing date.

Trial time will be divided between Plaintiff(s) and Defendant(s). The Court
reserves for itself 4.5 hours for the Court to do its portion of voir dire, read
preliminary and final jury instructions, and for jury deliberations. The parties will
then be splitting the remaining time for each party's portion of voir dire, opening
statements, witness examinations, and closing arguments. The Court uses a timer
to keep track of your time. When you are out of time, you are out of words.

Based on the trial setting, the Court sets the following deadlines and makes
the following orders. The dates set forth in this order are firm dates and will not be
extended or modified by this Court absent good cause. Lack of preparation will not
ordinarily be considered good cause.

DUTIES BEFORE THE FINAL TRIAL MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE

MOTIONS IN LIMINE. All motions in limine shall be filed no later than
5:00 p.m. 20 calendar days prior to the Final Trial Management Conference.
Written responses to motions in limine may be filed no later than 10 calendar days
after service of the motion. No replies shall be filed. The Court may hear argument at
the final trial management conference or may rule without oral argument. The parties
must comply with Ariz. R. Civ. P. Rule 7.2(a) before filing any motion in limine.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

10/04/2021

Docket Code 064
Form V000A
Page 5

Each side will be limited to filing no more than 5 motions in limine. However,
either side may file a brief of unlimited length addressing evidentiary issues
anticipated to arise at trial.

JOINT PRETRIAL STATEMENT. The parties shall file with the Court no
later than 5:00 p.m. 7 days prior to the Final Trial Management Conference, a
Joint Pretrial Statement, signed by all counsel (and any self-represented party) and
containing the following. This order modifies the requirements of Ariz. R. Civ. P.
16(f).

1. List of Claims. The Joint Pretrial Statement must contain a list of all
claims or causes of action on which a verdict is sought by any party. Such
list shall specify (1) the cause of action (e.g., breach of contract,
negligence, etc.), (2) each party asserting that cause of action, and (3) each
party against whom that cause of action is asserted.

2. No List of Issues. The requirements of Ariz. R. Civ. P. 16(f)(2)(A), (B)
and (C) are waived. The parties need not prepare a list of stipulations,
agreed contested issues or other issues considered material. Disputes over
what issues are properly in the case will be decided under Rule 26.1. The
parties may, if they wish, submit one or more separate stipulations
regarding facts, evidence or other matters.

3. Summary of the Case for Jury Selection. The Joint Pretrial Statement
must include an agreed-upon brief (generally less than 200 words)
summary of the case for jury selection purposes. If the parties cannot agree,
they must submit separate proposed summaries.

4. Final Trial Witnesses. The Joint Pretrial Statement must include an
exhibit entitled Final Trial Witness List, which must list each witness a
party expects to call at trial (in person or by deposition) and the day on
which they expect to call that witness. If the Court finds that a party
unreasonably included witnesses not likely to be called at trial, it may
consider appropriate sanctions.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

10/04/2021

Docket Code 064
Form V000A
Page 6

5. Trial Exhibits. As required by Rule 16(f)(E), all trial exhibits must be
listed in the Joint Pretrial Statement along with objections. The Court
typically resolves objections to exhibits at trial, but objections must be
listed in the Joint Pretrial Statement to be preserved. If the Court finds that
a party unreasonably included exhibits not likely to be used at trial, it may
consider appropriate sanctions.

6. Deposition Designations. Deposition designations and objections should
not be included in the Joint Pretrial Statement, but must be submitted to the
Court three judicial days before the start of trial. The Court will resolve
deposition designations as follows: By 4:00 p.m. the day before a party
plans to read deposition testimony, that party must provide the Court a hard
copy of the deposition transcript with (1) the portions to be read
highlighted, (2) any counter-designations highlighted in a different color,
and (3) any objections written in the margin. The Court will rule on any
objections by the next day. If the party plans to play a video deposition, the
transcript must be provided by 4:00 p.m. two days before the deposition
will be played.

7. Other Matters. The Joint Pretrial Statement must include the matters in
Ariz. R. Civ. P. 16(f)(2)(H) - (M).

JURY INSTRUCTIONS; VOIR DIRE. The parties shall meet and agree on
as many proposed jury instructions as possible. The parties shall file with the Court,
with their Joint Pretrial Statement, copies of:

1. Proposed voir dire questions.

2. Agreed-upon preliminary and final jury instructions and proposed forms
of verdicts.

3. Separate sets of requested instructions that have not been agreed upon.
Recommended Arizona Jury Instructions (“RAJI”) may be referred to by

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

10/04/2021

Docket Code 064
Form V000A
Page 7

name without reprinting, but if the RAJI contains options for the Court the
party should indicate which options it is requesting.

Jury instructions not requested by the final trial management conference will
be deemed waived unless good cause exists for the untimely request.

SETTLEMENT. The parties are reminded to promptly notify the Court of
any settlement pursuant to Ariz. R. Civ. P. 5.3(d). One day’s jury fees will be
assessed unless the Court is notified of settlement before 2:00 p.m. on the judicial
day before the trial.

DUTIES AT TRIAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

At the final trial management conference, the parties shall be prepared to
discuss:

1. The claims and parties as to which a verdict is sought.

2. The length of the trial and any time limits to complete the trial in the
allotted time.

3. Any scheduling or equipment issues.

4. Voir dire.

5. Any special issues regarding exhibits or deposition designations.

6. Preliminary jury instructions.

7. The case summary for jury selection purposes.

8. Motions in limine.

9. The potential for settlement before trial.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

10/04/2021

Docket Code 064
Form V000A
Page 8

TRIAL EXHIBITS

Counsel (and any self-represented party) shall hand-deliver all trial exhibits
to the Clerk of the Court file counter at Northeast Regional Court no later than
3:00 p.m. on April 7, 2023.

**PLEASE NOTE: FOR JURY TRIALS, ONLY PAPER EXHIBITS SHALL
BE SUBMITTED**

For submitting paper exhibits, please adhere to the following guidelines:

1. Exhibits will be marked consecutively. The clerk cannot reserve numbers
for exhibits that will be provided at a later date. Any missing exhibits
will not be considered and the numbers of all following exhibits will be
moved up. If Defendant’s exhibits are received prior to Plaintiff’s
exhibits, the clerk may mark them first with Plaintiff’s exhibits
following.

2. Original depositions will not be marked as an exhibit. Original
depositions to be used for impeachment purposes shall be provided to the
clerk on the first day of trial to be hand-filed.

3. Do not submit duplicate exhibits. It is essential that the parties confer
to avoid submitting duplicate exhibits.

4. If large charts or enlarged photos are anticipated to be used, please
include a small version (or photo) which can be marked as the exhibit.
The charts and blow-ups are used for demonstrative purpose only, are not
marked as the exhibits, and are returned.

5. Each multiple page exhibit MUST be securely fastened together by staple
or pronged fasteners. DO NOT use paper clips, rubber bands, binder
clips or submit loose sheets of paper.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

10/04/2021

Docket Code 064
Form V000A
Page 9

6. Do not put numbers on the exhibits themselves; instead, use a
COLORED sheet with the exhibit number on it. Place the colored
sheet in front of each exhibit, however, DO NOT staple or paper-clip it
to the exhibit itself (this should be the only loose sheet).

7. The parties are to provide a workable list of exhibits. The list should
include a title or description of each exhibit. (See blank sample of the
following table as a reference). Keep the descriptions of the exhibits
simple. Do not use a description that cannot be verified by looking at the
first page of document or item. Do not include Bates numbers in your
description of the exhibits, as they do not constitute a simple description.

8. If media files or video-recordings are anticipated to be submitted for
marking, please submit them on thumb-drives, not on a CD, and deliver
them to the Clerk of Court at the time of exhibit submission. A separate
thumb-drive must be used for each file.

Exhibi
t No.
Identifi
ed By
Description
Should be verifiable when viewing the first page
of the exhibit
Stipulated in
Evidence/Objecti
on

PLEASE NOTE: Each party shall provide a binder of exhibits for the Court’s
use. Each exhibit shall be separated by numbered divider tabs.

For additional assistance in preparation of exhibits, contact the courtroom clerk at:
[email protected]

NOTICE: Exhibits Marked But Not Offered

Exhibits submitted to the Court for an evidentiary hearing/trial, whether
through hard copy or submitted electronically, that are marked as exhibits but

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

10/04/2021

Docket Code 064
Form V000A
Page 10

are not offered into evidence at the evidentiary hearing/trial will be destroyed
following the hearing/trial, unless a party requests that the evidence be
returned at the conclusion of the hearing/trial. Such requests must be filed with
the Court and served on all parties in advance of the hearing or by no later than
the conclusion of the hearing/trial.

USE OF COURTROOM EQUIPMENT

All parties are expected to be familiar with the workings of the courtroom’s
electronic equipment. If there is a need to become familiar with this division’s
electronic equipment, please make an appointment through this Division’s
Courtroom Assistant, Bory Reth, at [email protected] to test the
equipment no later than one week prior to the scheduled proceeding.

COMMUNICATION WITH DIVISION

Preferred communication with this Division is via email to the judicial
assistant, Marlene Hovorka, at [email protected]. For
any and all such written communication, all other parties to the case shall be
endorsed. The phone number for this division is (602) 506-7569.

FOR ALL IN-PERSON APPEARANCES: Due to the spread of COVID-
19, the Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 2021-109 and the Maricopa
County Superior Court Administrative Order 2021-119 require all individuals
entering a court facility in Maricopa County to wear a mask or face covering at all
times that they are inside the facility. Any person who refuses to wear a mask or
face covering as directed by court personnel will be denied access to the facility. If
a participant is denied physical access to a courthouse for refusing to wear a face
covering, the participant must contact the assigned judicial division to determine
whether the person can participate in the proceeding using an audio or video
connection.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

10/20/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

10/16/2020

Docket Code 083
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO
G. Chavez

Deputy

VILLAGE AT GRAYHAWK OWNERS
ASSOCIATION
JOSHUA M BOLEN

v.

ALAN JONES, et al.

KATHRYN MARIE JONES
1610 W ALOE VERA DR
PHOENIX AZ 85085
JUDGE CAMPAGNOLO

MINUTE ENTRY

Due to technical difficulties,

IT IS ORDERED vacating the Telephonic Trial Setting Conference set this date and
resetting same to October 28, 2020, at 8:30 a.m. (15 minutes allotted) before Judge Theodore
Campagnolo. The parties shall have their calendars available for this proceeding.

Counsel for the Plaintiff shall initiate the conference call by arranging the presence of all
parties and contacting this Division’s courtroom directly at (602) 372-0537 at the time indicated
above.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

11/04/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

10/28/2020

Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO
G. Chavez

Deputy

VILLAGE AT GRAYHAWK OWNERS
ASSOCIATION
JOSHUA M BOLEN

v.

ALAN JONES, et al.

KATHRYN MARIE JONES
1610 W ALOE VERA DR
PHOENIX AZ 85085
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION - CCC
DOCKET-CIVIL-CCC
JUDGE CAMPAGNOLO

MINUTE ENTRY

Courtroom 102 – NER

8:33 a.m. This is the time set for a Telephonic Trial Setting Conference. Counsel
Timothy D. Butterfield appears on behalf of Village at Grayhawk Owners Association in its role
as Plaintiff in this matter and counsel Scott Humble appears on behalf of Village Grayhawk
Owners Association in its role as Counterdefendant in this matter. Defendant/Counterclaimant,
Kathryn Marie Jones, appears on her own behalf.

A record of the proceedings is made digitally in lieu of a court reporter.

Discussion is held regarding Mrs. Jones’ 3rd Request for a Stay of All Further Case
Activities Which Has Been Continually Ignored by the Court and Directly Caused Personal
Injuries to Occur, filed on September 28, 2020.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

10/28/2020

Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 2

THE COURT FINDS that, to the extent that Mrs. Jones is requesting a permanent stay or
a permanent extension of time, such a request is not a reasonable accommodation.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying Mrs. Jones’ 3rd Request for a Stay of All
Further Case Activities Which Has Been Continually Ignored by the Court and Directly Caused
Personal Injuries to Occur, filed on September 28, 2020, to the extent that Mrs. Jones is
requesting a permanent stay or a permanent extension of time.

Mrs. Jones makes an oral motion to be allowed twice the amount of time than provided
by the Rules of Civil Procedure to file a response or reply to any pleadings in this matter.
Plaintiff’s counsel do not object.

IT IS ORDERED that Mrs. Jones shall be allowed twice the amount of time than
provided by the Rules of Civil Procedure to file a response or reply to any pleadings in this
matter.

Further discussion is held.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if any party makes a request to appear remotely for
their deposition due to circumstances related to Covid-19, then such a request shall be honored
without further order of the Court. All requests to be deposed by remote means shall be
conducted by videoconference. This automatic right to appear remotely for a deposition shall not
apply to non-parties, including lay and expert witnesses. All non-parties shall need to file a
written request to appear remotely on a deposition-by-deposition basis.

LET THE RECORD REFLECT that Plaintiff’s counsel agree to work with Defendants’
experts as to any requests to appear by videoconference for depositions.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all depositions shall be completed no later than
August 31, 2021.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall attend an ADR Settlement
Conference no later than August 31, 2021. If the parties choose to participate in private
mediation, then they shall immediately notify the Court so that the ADR Settlement Conference
can be vacated.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all dispositive and/or Daubert motions shall be filed
no later than September 14, 2021.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

10/28/2020

Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mrs. Jones shall contact the Clerk’s Office at (602)
372-5375 to find out how to obtain access to this court docket from home. If the issue is not
resolved, then a representative from the Clerk’s Office shall provide a letter to this Court as to
why Mrs. Jones is unable to obtain access to this court docket from home.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting an 11-Day Jury Trial on November 29-30, 2021,
December 1-2, 2021, December 6-9, 2021, and December 13-15, 2021, at 9:30 a.m. before:

The Honorable Judge Theodore Campagnolo
Superior Court of Arizona
Northeast Regional Court Center
18380 North 40th Street
Courtroom 102
Phoenix, Arizona 85032
(602) 372-0537

THIS IS A FIRM TRIAL SETTING.

Trial hours will be from 9:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. (with a
lunch recess from noon to 1:30 p.m. and two 15-minute recesses, daily), Monday through
Thursday (unless otherwise ordered by the Court).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting a Final Trial Management Conference on
November 5, 2021, at 9:00 a.m. (90 minutes allotted). The Pretrial Management Conference
shall be governed by the Pretrial Management Orders issued this date.

COUNSEL WHO WILL BE THE LEAD TRIAL ATTORNEYS ON THE CASE
AND IF THE PARTIES ARE PRO PER, THEY ARE REQUIRED TO BE IN COURT FOR THE
PRETRIAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE.

If the parties are not familiar with the courtroom’s technology, they are encouraged to set
up an appointment with the court’s technology liaison at 602.372.7876.

All court proceedings are recorded digitally and not by a court reporter. Pursuant to Local
Rule 2.22, if a party desires a court reporter for any proceeding in which a court reporter is not
mandated by Arizona Supreme Court Rule 30, the party must submit a written request to the
assigned judicial officer at least ten (10) judicial days in advance of the hearing, and must pay the
authorized fee to the Clerk of the Court at least two (2) judicial days before the proceeding. The
fee is $140 for a half-day and $280 for a full day.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

10/28/2020

Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 4

Based on the trial setting, the court sets the following deadlines and makes the following
orders. The dates set forth in this order are firm dates and will not be extended or modified by this
court absent good cause. Lack of preparation will not ordinarily be considered good cause. The
Court will reject any pleadings that do not comply with the orders set forth below.
DUTIES BEFORE THE FINAL TRIAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

MOTIONS IN LIMINE. Motions in limine shall be filed only in accordance with Rule
7.2, ARCP. Motions in limine shall be filed thirty (30) days before the FTMC; any responses to
a motion in limine shall be filed no later than ten (10) days thereafter. Said motions must meet
the test of State v. Superior Court, 108 Ariz. 396, 397, 499 P.2d 152 (1972). If the Court wishes
to hear argument, the argument will be heard at the FTMC. No replies shall be filed.

Motions in limine titles are expected to contain the identifying party, the type of motion,
the number, and the specific subject to which the motion is addressing. For example, “Plaintiff’s
Motion in Limine No. 1 Re: Expert Witness”. Unless prior written leave of Court is obtained for
good cause shown, no party may file more than three (3) motions in limine, including all subparts
and the motions shall be no more than three (3) pages in length. The parties shall not file motions
denominated as “in limine” that are, in substance, late-filed motions for summary judgment.

MOTIONS: All motions, including but not limited to dispositive and Daubert motions,
other than motions in limine, shall be filed according to the deadlines set in the Court’s
Scheduling Order. The deadline for any motion brought for a Daubert hearing or brought under
ARIZ. R. EVID. 702, is the same as the dispositive motion deadline. Failure to file such a motion
by the date in the Scheduling Order shall constitute a waiver of (1) any objection that the expert
is not qualified to render expert testimony, and/or (2) any objection that any opinion of the expert
should be excluded under ARIZ. R. EVID. 702.

JOINT PRETRIAL STATEMENT. The parties shall file with the court no later than 10
days before the Final Trial Management Conference pursuant to Ariz. R. Civ. P. 16 (f), a Joint
Pretrial Statement, signed by all counsel (and any self-represented party) and containing the
following:

1.
List of Claims. The Joint Pretrial Statement must contain a list of all claims or causes
of action on which a verdict is sought by any party. Such list shall specify (1) the cause of action
(e.g., breach of contract, negligence, etc.), (2) each party asserting that cause of action, and (3) each
party against whom that cause of action is asserted.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

10/28/2020

Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 5

2
List of Stipulated and Contested Issues. The requirements of Ariz. R. Civ. P.
16(f)(2)(A),(B) and (C) shall be followed. Disputes over what issues are properly in the case will be
decided under Rule 26.1.

3.
Summary of the Case for Jury Selection. The Joint Pretrial Statement must include
an agreed-upon brief (generally less than 200 words) summary of the case for jury selection purposes.
If the parties cannot agree, they must submit separate proposed summaries.

4.
Final Trial Witnesses. The Joint Pretrial Statement must include a Final Trial
Witness List, which must list each witness a party expects to call at trial (in person or by deposition),
the day on which they expect to call that witness and the estimated testimony time of witnesses. If
the court finds that a party unreasonably included witnesses not likely to be called at trial, it may
consider appropriate sanctions.

5.
Trial Exhibits. As required by Rule 16(f)(2)(E), all trial exhibits must be listed in the
Joint Pretrial Statement along with objections. The court typically resolves objections to exhibits at
trial, but objections must be listed in the Joint Pretrial Statement to be preserved. If the court finds
that a party unreasonably included exhibits not likely to be used at trial, it may consider appropriate
sanctions.

6.
Deposition Designations. Deposition designations and objections should not be
included in the Joint Pretrial Statement. Deposition designations must be submitted to the Court at
the same time the Joint Pretrial Statement is due. The court will resolve deposition designations as
follows. Counsel must provide the court a hard copy of the deposition transcript with (1) the portions
to be read highlighted, (2) any counter-designations highlighted in a different color, and (3) any
objections written in the margin.

7.
Other Matters. The Joint Pretrial Statement must include the matters in Ariz. R. Civ.
P. 16(f)(2)(H-M).

JURY INSTRUCTIONS; VOIR DIRE The parties shall meet and agree on as many
proposed jury instructions as possible. At the time of the filing of the joint pretrial statement, the
parties shall file and are required to provide the Court with a (CD), in word format, and a sanitized
copy of:

1.
An agreed-upon set of proposed preliminary and final jury instructions (All case
citations and RAJI references removed from the draft); and

2.
Proposed verdict forms, and voir dire questions and any additional jury instructions.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

10/28/2020

Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 6

3.
In the event that the parties disagree on a particular jury instruction, both parties’
proposed jury instruction shall be included in the draft proposed jury instructions with the
notation “Disputed” in the name of the instruction.

Jury instructions not requested by the final trial management conference will be deemed
waived unless good cause exists for the untimely request.

SETTLEMENT. The parties are reminded to promptly notify the court of any settlement
pursuant to Ariz. R. Civ. P. 5.3(d). One day’s jury fees will be assessed unless the court is notified of
settlement before 2:00 p.m. on the judicial day before the trial.

TIME ESTIMATES FOR TRIAL. Time Estimates for Trial attached hereto shall be
submitted on the same date as the parties’ Joint Pretrial Statement as ordered herein.

In the event evidence or testimony is objected to on the basis of non-disclosure, the parties
should be prepared at trial to demonstrate compliance or non-compliance with Rule 26.1. This is
usually done by showing the court disclosure statements, so those must be available in the
courtroom.

TRIAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

At the final trial management conference, the parties shall be prepared to discuss:

1.
The claims and parties as to which a verdict is sought.

2.
The time designated for trial and, if necessary, time limits.

3.
Any scheduling or equipment issues.

4.
Voir dire.

5.
Any special issues regarding exhibits or deposition designations.

6.
Preliminary jury instructions.

7.
The case summary for jury selection purposes.

8.
Motions in limine.

9.
The potential for settlement before trial.

TRIAL EXHIBITS

IT IS ORDERED that on or before November 22, 2021, the parties shall deliver any
exhibits they intend to use at the trial to the Clerk’s Office.

Please submit the exhibits in 3-ring tabbed binders to the division on or before the date
listed above. Please do not overfill the binders, as the rings cannot support a full binder, and you

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

10/28/2020

Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 7

may be asked to assist the Clerk in placing the exhibits into additional binders that will be
provided by counsel or parties.

Each exhibit must be separated by an Exhibit Slip Sheet to clearly identify individual
exhibits. If exhibits are not clearly separated, they will be combined as one (1) document. The
exhibits shall be accompanied by a written list with a brief description of each exhibit, (bank
statement, article, letter, email, etc.). All exhibits must be clearly labeled by the parties to
correspond with the list provided. If the following procedures are not complied with, exhibits
may be rejected.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall provide the Court with a bench copy
of the exhibits in tabbed format in the same order as listed on the Clerk’s official exhibit
worksheet.

1. Exhibits will be marked consecutively Plaintiff(s) first and then Defendant(s);
2. The clerk cannot reserve numbers for exhibits that will be provided at a later
date;
3. To avoid confusion during trial, it is essential that counsel avoid submitting
duplicate exhibits;
4. Letter designations such as 5A, 5B, etc. shall not be used;
5. A colored sheet shall be placed between each exhibit with the exhibit number
clearly marked on each colored paper; (if you are submitting exhibits in a binder,
no color paper is needed, just tabbed numbers)
6. Depositions will not be marked as an exhibit. Original depositions to be used for
impeachment purposes shall be provided to the clerk on the first day of trial/hearing
to be hand-filed by the clerk.
7. ****Each multiple page exhibit must be securely fastened together by staple or
other means. (unless you are submitting exhibits in a binder) NO
PAPERCLIPS may be used. If Acco fasteners are used they must be long enough
to fasten securely.****

If counsel are submitting large charts, blow-ups or maps, please include a small version
which can be marked as the exhibit and can go into the jury if in evidence.

Sample of List of Exhibits to be provided to the courtroom clerk:

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

10/28/2020

Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 8

EXHIBIT LIST

Exhibit
No.
Identi-
fied By

Description
Stipulated in
Evidence/
Objection

NOTICE: Exhibits Marked But Not Offered

Exhibits submitted to the court for an evidentiary hearing/trial, whether through hard
copy or submitted electronically, that are marked as exhibits but are not offered into evidence at
the evidentiary hearing will be destroyed following the hearing/trial, unless a party requests that
the evidence be returned at the conclusion of the hearing. Such requests must be filed with the
Court and served on all parties in advance of the hearing or by no later than the conclusion of the
hearing.

TIME ESTIMATES FOR TRIAL

Opening Statement and Closing Argument

Estimate of Time for Witness Examination

PLAINTIFF’S
WITNESS
IN PERSON
OR BY
DEPOSITION
DATE IF
TESTIMONY
DIRECT
EXAMINATION
CROSS
EXAMINATION
REDIRECT
EXAMINATION
TOTAL
TIME FOR
WITNESS

PLAINTIFF'S OPENING STATEMENT

DEFENDANT'S OPENING

PLAINTIFF'S CLOSING

DEFENDANT'S CLOSING

PLAINTIFF'S REBUTTAL

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

10/28/2020

Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 9

DEFENDANT’S
WITNESS
IN PERSON
OR BY
DEPOSITION
DATE IF
TESTIMONY
DIRECT
EXAMINATION
CROSS
EXAMINATION
REDIRECT
EXAMINATION
TOTAL
TIME FOR
WITNESS

The foregoing are based on the best estimates of counsel of the time reasonably needed to
complete the necessary examination of the witnesses listed.

____________________________________
Counsel for Plaintiff
___________________________________
Counsel for Defendant

9:32 a.m. Matter concludes.

**Counsel please review the information below**

Becoming familiar with the Court’s requirements is crucial, failure to comply with any of
the requirements can and will delay any resolution to the issue. The Court reserves the right to
reject or hold in abeyance any motion that does not meet the requirements listed below or on the
online profile. The Court also follows the guidelines that are required pursuant to the Arizona
Rules of Civil Procedure and expects counsel and individuals representing themselves to do the
same.

Counsel are encouraged to visit Judge Campagnolo’s online profile for information on
the Court’s expectations regarding motion practices and requirements, discovery disputes, and
hearing/trial procedures at the following website:
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/JudicialBiographies/judges/profile.asp?jdgID=327&jdg
USID=12118

Pay particular attention to the following when submitting Motions:

Multiple Motions in One: This division requires that all motions, responses, replies and
other pleadings in this case must be submitted individually. The parties shall not combine
any motion with a responsive pleading. All motions are to be filed separately and
designated as such. No pleadings will be accepted if filed in combination with another.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

10/28/2020

Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 10

Motions with Exhibits: Bookmarking and hyperlinking in pleadings is encouraged. See
Rule 5.2(c)(3)(A), Ariz. R. Civ. P. All e-filed pleadings, including, but not limited to,
summary judgment pleadings, that contain more than 5 exhibits shall contain
bookmarks/hyperlinks to all exhibits attached to your pleading(s). All
bookmarks/hyperlinks must be contained in your e-filed pleading in pdf format. The
bookmarking/hyperlinking to exhibits is crucial, so that the Court can readily locate an
exhibit without undue delay. The Court does not want hard copies of the exhibits, and the
Court does not want the materials on thumb drive or email. DO NOT bookmark or
hyperlink case citations. Any bookmarks/hyperlinks to any websites or the internet (e.g.,
Westlaw) will not work. Failure to provide the bookmarks/hyperlinks as required above
will result in the issuance of a Minute Entry rejecting the pleading. The party will be
required to efile a new pleading with proper bookmarking/hyperlinking no later than 14
days after the filing of the Minute Entry rejecting the original pleading. The Court
reserves the right to disallow any pleadings that are not re-efiled within 14 days. You
may obtain further information on e-filing with bookmarks under Section 2.03(b) of the
following webpage:
https://efiling.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/efilingguidelines/#formattofefileddocuments

I am aware that some attempted bookmarkings/hyperlinkings may be unsuccessful due to
software incompatibility with the Clerk's software, or because the documents' size
exceeds the Clerk's capacity. In those situations, upon the filing of a notice to that effect
signed by the party's attorney, the bookmarked/hyperlinked document may be submitted
to the Court on a CD.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

12/21/2016 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

12/16/2016

Docket Code 056
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE AIMEE L. ANDERSON
A. Wood

Deputy

VILLAGE AT GRAYHAWK OWNERS
ASSOCIATION
STEWART FOSTER SALWIN

v.

ALAN JONES, et al.
J ROGER WOOD

EVIDENTIARY HEARING SET

Courtroom 108-NE

10:03 a.m. This is the time set for hearing on Plaintiff’s Order to Show Cause. Counsel
Stewart Salwin is present on behalf of Plaintiff Village at Grayhawk Owners Association.
Counsel J Roger Wood is present on behalf of Defendant Catherine Jones, et al.

A record of the proceedings is made digitally in lieu of a court reporter.

Discussion is held regarding any agreements being reached on the Order to Show Cause.

Counsel and Court discuss hearing dates available for an evidentiary hearing.

Based on the information presented,

IT IS ORDERED setting an Evidentiary hearing on the Order to Show Cause March 24,
2017 at 1:30 p.m. (3 hours allotted) in this division before:

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

12/16/2016

Docket Code 056
Form V000A
Page 2

JUDGE AIMEE L. ANDERSON
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
NORTHEAST REGIONAL COURT CENTER
18380 NORTH 40TH STREET
COURTROOM 108
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85032

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED counsel shall deliver any exhibits along with a
description of each exhibit to the division’s clerk for marking no later than March 17, 2017 by
5:00 p.m.

10:07 a.m. Matter concludes.

GUIDELINES FOR COUNSEL WHEN PREPARING EXHIBITS FOR USE IN COURT

COUNSEL PLEASE READ

Exhibits are due to the Court not later than March 17, 2017.

Exhibits will be marked consecutively, Plaintiff’s exhibits are marked first and then
Defendant’s exhibits. The clerk cannot reserve numbers for exhibits that will be provided at a
later date. To avoid confusion during trial, it is essential that counsel avoid submitting duplicate
exhibits. The clerk cannot reserve numbers for exhibits that will be provided at a later date. Do
not list “Any and all exhibits listed by ….” Depositions will not be marked as an exhibit.
Original depositions to be used for impeachment purposes shall be provided to the clerk on the
first day of trial/hearing to be hand-filed by the clerk.

****Each multiple page exhibit must be securely fastened together by staple or
other means. NO PAPER CLIPS, BINDER CLIPS, OR RUBBER BANDS may be used. If
Acco fasteners are used they must be long enough to fasten securely.****

Counsel are to provide a workable list of exhibits. The list should include a description
of each exhibit. (See blank sample of an exhibit table below as a reference.) Do not put
numbers on the exhibits; however a colored slip sheet with the exhibit number on it should be
placed in front of each exhibit.

Exhibit Description Information:

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

12/16/2016

Docket Code 056
Form V000A
Page 3

The descriptions should be verifiable when viewing the first page of the exhibit.

No bates stamp references or number of pages in documents should be used.

If counsel are submitting large charts, blow-ups or maps, please include a small version
which can be marked as the exhibit and can go into the jury if in evidence. The blow-ups, charts
and/or maps can be used as demonstrative but will not be marked as exhibits and will be returned
to counsel.

For additional assistance in preparation of exhibits contact the courtroom clerk at 602-
372-7732.

Sample of List of Exhibits to be provided to the courtroom clerk:

EXHIBIT LIST

Exhibit
No.
Identi-
fied By

Description
Stipulated in
Evidence/
Objection

NOTE: All court proceedings are recorded digitally and not by a court reporter. Pursuant to
Local Rule 2.22, if a party desires a court reporter for any proceeding in which a court reporter is
not mandated by Arizona Supreme Court Rule 30, the party must submit a written request to the
assigned judicial officer at least ten (10) judicial days in advance of the hearing, and must pay
the authorized fee to the Clerk of the Court at least two (2) judicial days before the proceeding.
The fee is $140 for a half-day and $280 for a full day.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

12/20/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

12/17/2021

Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ALISON BACHUS
C. Lett

Deputy

VILLAGE AT GRAYHAWK OWNERS
ASSOCIATION
JOSHUA M BOLEN

v.

ALAN JONES, et al.

KATHRYN MARIE JONES
1610 W ALOE VERA DR
PHOENIX AZ 85085
JUDGE BACHUS

ORAL ARGUMENT SET

Before the Court is Plaintiff/Counterdefendant’s Village at Grayhawk
Owners Association’s Motion to Preclude Expert Testimony of Alan Jones filed
September 14, 2021.

IT IS ORDERED setting Oral Argument regarding
Plaintiff/Counterdefendant’s Village at Grayhawk Owners Association’s Motion to
Preclude Expert Testimony of Alan Jones for January 19, 2022 at 10:00 a.m.
(time allotted: 1 hour) in this Division.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-050453

12/17/2021

Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 2

Counsel and any unrepresented parties shall appear by videoconference
through Court Connect for this conference.

Please join the hearing from your computer, tablet, or smartphone:

https://tinyurl.com/jbazmc-cvj16

You can also dial in using your phone.
United States: +1 (917) 781-4590

Courtroom Conference ID: 826 490 596#

Use of the above link can be made easier by downloading the Microsoft Teams
application first; for more on the new platform, including an introduction video and
participant guide, please visit: https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/court-connect

Oral argument shall be limited to one (1) hour with the time divided equally
between the sides.

NOTE: All Court proceedings are recorded digitally and not by a court
reporter. Pursuant to Local Rule 2.22, if a party desires a court reporter for any
proceeding in which a court reporter is not mandated by Arizona Supreme Court
Rule 30, the party must submit a written request to the assigned judicial officer at
least ten (10) judicial days in advance of the hearing, and must pay the authorized
fee to the Clerk of the Court at least two (2) judicial days before the proceeding.
The fee is $140 for a half-day and $280 for a full day.

Documents